Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

VIVISECTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to present petitions signed by 1,109 persons in Barrow-in-Furness, 142 persons in Bromley, 980 persons in Chiswick, 646 persons in Eastbourne, 648 persons in Nottingham, 251 persons in Rochester, and 400 persons in Tunbridge Wells, all in the same terms, praying this honourable House that the practice of vivisection may be prohibited by law.

PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES.

Return ordered, "showing, so far as particulars are available, the total expenditure (other than out of loans) in England and Wales under certain Acts of Parliament during the years ended the 31st March, 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921, 1925, and 1926, respectively; and the total number of persons directly benefiting from the expenditure for the year 1925, together with similar particulars for Scotland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 205, of Session 1924–25."—[Sir Evelyn Cecil.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ELECTRIOAL EQUIPMENT (ORDERS FOR RUSSIA).

Mr. J. HUDSON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department will take steps under the Trade Facilities Acts, the revised Export Credits Scheme, or otherwise by which there may be facilitated, the placing of orders in Great Britain by the Russian Commission now in this country,
and empowered to purchase electrical equipment to the value of £2,500,000 for Russian electrical power stations?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer is in the negative. The policy of His Majesty's Government towards credits for transactions with the Soviet Government, which was very fully explained to the House on the 10th March by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of. Trade, remains unchanged.

Mr. HUDSON: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is still in this country a Commission with quite definite powers to place orders for machinery, and that this machinery is made by an industry which at the present time is suffering very severely from unemployment?

Mr. SAMUEL: That may be so; but the hon. Gentleman is wider an entire misapprehension of the position. There is no reason whatever why manufacturers of machinery should not take orders from the Soviet. Commission, if they care to do so. There is nothing to prevent them.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: How much of the £75,000,000 has been allotted?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not recall to what sum my hon. Friend refers.

Sir F. WISE: The Trade Facilities money

Mr. SAMUEL: That question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does not come under my Department.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why British manufacturers cannot give extended credits like their competitors on the Continent is the uncertainty of the Government's policy?

Mr. SAMUEL: I totally disagree with that view.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that foreigners are issuing loans in this country to which millions of pounds are being subscribed, and that thereby Continental governments can give these credits to Russia?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, and I think the hon. Gentleman also is under a misapprehension if he imagines that foreign governments are giving these millions of pounds of credits to Russia.

Commander WILLIAMS: Would it not he better for the Government to encourage trade facilities within our own Empire?

BRITISH FILMS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any further information with regard to the proposals of the members of the cinematograph industry for the encouragement of the production and exhibition of British cinematograph films; whether he has yet received any Report from the industry; if so, what is its nature; and whether he has any proposals to make himself for such encouragement to British cinemas?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have just received this morning the Report of the Joint Trade Committee, and have not yet been able to consider it in detail. I regret, however, that the Report shows that the various sections in the cinema trade are unable to put forward agreed proposals. As already stated in the House, it is proposed that the whole question should be discussed at the Imperial Conference.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right lion. Gentleman place a copy of the Report on the Table of the House, and can he say whether he will be in a position, when we reassemble in November, to state his intentions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it would be in accordance with precedent to lay the Report on the Table of the House, but I am quite willing to have a copy placed in the Library. Obviously it will be quite impossible for me to make a statement of policy until we have discussed the matter at the Imperial Conference, but I think I should, perhaps, say this: All sections of the trade have known for months past that the Government would have to consider the desirability of legislation, either if the trade recommended agreed proposals; or in default of such agreement. That being so, I think it right to
say that in the event of the Government introducing legislation they must not be held to be precluded from making that legislation effective, notwithstanding any trade arrangements which might have been made with a view to nullifying its effect.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make any effort to get the trade to come to an agreement before the Imperial Conference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I have been trying for six months to get the three sections of this trade to come to an agreement, and there arc a number of people in it who have made every effort to get agreement. They have now made a, report saying they have failed to come to an agreement, and I do not think I can usefully stimulate them further.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that in his public utterances recently he has promised to bring in legislation to govern this industry?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the approximate proportion of British films per hundred shown on the screens in this country; and what proportion of the remainder are productions of America?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no exact information, but I think the trade estimates that about 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the films shown in this country are British, and about 95 per cent. of the remainder American.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not this question serious enough to take immediate action?

Colonel DAY: Can the right lion. Gentleman say what proportion come from France, Italy and Germany?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps if I had notice I might be able to make some inquiries, but obviously I could not say without notice.

EXPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give figures showing the total exports and re-exports of British goods for each of the past three years; the countries,
Dominions and Protectorates to which these exports have been sent; and the values in cumulo and per head of the population sent to each?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries to which British goods are exported, the population of each foreign country, Dominion, or Colony, and also the value of the produce per head of the population in each of them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: I will answer these questions together, and as the reply is rather long, the hon. Members will, perhaps, agree to it being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman find it convenient to discriminate between raw materials exported and manufactured goods exported, since it is obvious that our exports to the United States are very largely made up of raw materials, such as rubber, which gives a fictitious appearance to our exports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think I could. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer I am circulating. I could not give the information up to date, and I rather disagree with him in his deductions as to exports to the United States.

Following is the information promised:

Particulars of our exports and re-exports to the several Empire and foreign countries for each of the past three years are given in Tables IX and X of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation" for January last. There is also published quarterly in the "Board of Trade Journal" the distribution of the export, re-export and import trade of this country by markets showing the relative percentages pre-War and at the most recent date available. The last of these Tables was published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of the 20th May.

The populations of the principal Empire and foreign countries, together with the value of our trade with them in 1923, are shown at the head of the articles on those countries in the "Survey of Overseas Markets," published last year by the Committee on Industry and Trade.

I think it would be of interest to show approximately the value per head of the
importing country of the exports from this country; and I will see if I can publish a table giving this information when the next Market Distribution Table is published in the Journal.

Oral Answers to Questions — >MERCANTILE MARINE.

SHIPPING FEDERATION.

PHILIP RICHARDSON: 5 and 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) under what authority does the Shipping Federation make a levy of 6d. per gross ton upon British shipping; for what purposes is this levy made; how much has already been spent on these objects what percentage of the amount is absorbed in expenses; and how much does the reserve fund arising from this levy amount to;
(2) whether the Shipping Federation gave any assistance to the Port of London authority or to shipowners by providing labour for the discharge of steamers during the recent general strike?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will answer these questions together. The objects for which the Shipping Federation is established are stated in the memorandum of association, and its powers to make a levy on its members are stated in the articles of association. These documents can be inspected at the Companies Registry, Somerset House. I have no information on the other subjects mentioned in the questions.

Mr. SEXTON: Is it a fact that this Federation is a registered trade union, and that the 6d. is a political levy, and does it make any return to the Registrar-General?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not the least idea, but it is not a Government organisation, and I cannot answer for it.

FOREIGN DISCRIMINATION.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923, there has been any Empire consultation on the question of discrimination of foreign countries against the British flag?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: Individual cases member have been dealt with, as
they arose, with the Dominion Government concerned, but there has been no consultation of a general nature since the Imperial Conference of 1923.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Will this question be discussed at the Imperial Conference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-L1STER: I think certain proposals will be put forward.

Commander BELLAIRS: Has there been any representation to the United States concerning the special discrimination of the tonnage tax against British shipping industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

VENEREAL DISEASE.

Mr. B. PETO: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will see that in the next Report on the health of the Army the figures relating to the incidence of venereal disease are brought up to date, and that a Report will he included as to the effect of preventive and other measures taken to reduce it?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): As regards the first part of the question, the statistics relating to diseases in the Army cannot be compiled until the information is received from all Commands, both at home and abroad, which in the case of India is not until July of the year following that to which they refer. It is hoped that the Report for 1925 will be ready for publication by the end of the current year. As regards the second part of the question, reference to page 17 of the Report for the year 1924 will show that reference is already made to the effect of preventive and other measures.

COMMISSIONS (PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS).

Mr. AMMON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the filling of all regimental commissions by promotion from the ranks; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have the question thoroughly examined with a view to extending the opportunities for advancement of the rank and file?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The present system provides adequate opportunities for promotion from the ranks, and I see no grounds for considering any such departure from this system as is suggested by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT (WAGES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 15.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what ground the Report of the Trade Board Inspector with respect to certain rates of wages in the Royal Army Clothing Department is regarded as confidential; whether the Report is to be accepted: if not, for what reason whether he is aware that box porters in the Royal Army Clothing Department are designated as such because they work in partitioned compartments, and that they perform the duties customarily carried out by warehousemen elsewhere?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain King): As regards the first part of the question, the Report of a Trade Board Inspector belongs to a class of documents which it is. not considered in the public interest to. disclose. As regards the remaining parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15th July.

CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATIONS.

Mr. CADOGAN: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government propose to take with regard to the affiliation of Civil Service associations to outside bodies?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Winston Churchill): As I have already stated in reply to previous questions, His Majesty's Government have had this matter under close consideration. They have come definitely to the conclusion that it is contrary to the public interest that associations of Civil Servants should be affiliated to outside industrial and political organisations, and intend in due course to introduce legislation to deal with the matter.

STATIONERY OFFICE, ABINGDON STREET.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economy is likely to be effected by transferring the work of the Stationery Office in Abingdon Street to Kingsway?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The effect of the transfer will be to save the loss of about £600 per annum now being incurred on the Abingdon Street office, and in all probability to add somewhat the profit that is being made at the Kingsway Office.

HARROW PRINTING WORKS (GLASGOW TELEPHONE DIRECTORY).

Mr. NAYLOR: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the circumstances under which 7,000 copies of the Glasgow Telephone Directory produced at the Government printing establishment at Harrow were spoiled and had to be reprinted; whether he is aware that the overseer responsible for this work is a non-union volunteer, and that the overseer originally in charge of the work has been reduced to the position of journeyman for having taken part in the general strike; and whether he will consider the advisability of the original overseer being reinstated?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that the hon. Member has been given an incorrect version of the incident. The Glasgow Telephone Directory is a book of 240 pages. Owing to the oversight of a press-reviser in not changing a whole-page advertisement, 7,000 copies of that single leaf, not of the whole work, had to be reprinted. This press-reviser is not the overseer referred to in the question. He happens to be a trade unionist, who took part in the strike and was subsequently re-engaged in the same position. The action taken in regard to the overseer was strictly in accordance with the declared policy of the Government in regard to giving preference to men who volunteered for service during the strike.

SOUTHBOROLTGH EXAMINATION (SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES).

Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the disappointing progress being made with the
establishment of successful candidates at the Southborough examination, he will take steps to expedite their appointment?

Mr. McNEILL: The number of successful candidates so far appointed to established posts is 2,149. I am afraid that I could not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's implication that this represents disappointing progress. Certification and assignments are proceeding as rapidly as could reasonably be expected, and I should not feel justified in taking special steps to expedite the arrangements.

TAX OFFICES, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when he anticipates that it will be possible to effect the removal of the 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th Sheffield tax districts to more convenient and suitable premises; and if arrangements can be made for them to be housed in the new telephone exchange, where it is understood that suitable accommodation exists?

Captain HACKING: (for
The details of the proposed re-housing of the new telephone exchange of the tax districts in question are at present under discussion with the Inland Revenue Department, and it is hoped to effect the removal shortly after the middle of October next, when it is anticipated that the new building will be completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURAL LIMING.

Lieut. - General Sir AYLMER HUNTER-WESTON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the difficulty of obtaining lime for agricultural purposes at an economic price in the south-west of Scotland, he will consider the advisability of encouraging the quarrying of lime, which is obtainable in large quantities in the Island of Arran, in a position near the sea, whence it can be cheaply shipped to all parts of the south-west of Scotland and the northwest of England?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John. Gilmour): I appreciate that a considerable acreage of land in Scotland is in need of lime, and I have reason to suppose that there is a. growing recognition among farmers of the fact that the departure from the former practice of regular liming was a mistake. I have been furnished with some particulars regarding the deposit of limestone in Arran referred to in the question. I cannot in present circumstances hold .out a prospect that the Board of Agriculture will have funds available. for financial assistance to such enterprises, but I should welcome any developments which have the effect of increasing the supplies of lime for agricultural purposes, and I should be glad to give them such encouragement as is in my power.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Could not this matter come under the agricultural survey?

Major MacANDREW: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that no money is likely to be given for liming?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot make any definite promise on the subject. In regard to the survey, we are getting some information.

Mr. HARDIE: While the survey will take years, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are quarries in the agricultural areas where they are working limestone, and that heaps of it are lying about, and will he get information from the agricultural areas as to these quarries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the survey is to be of practical use, it must be a scientific survey.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (CHURCHES AND MANSES).

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any churches or manses have been handed over by the heritors to the general trustees of the Church of Scotland, according to Section 28 of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowment.) Act, 1925; and, if so, how many?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that no churches or manses have as yet been transferred from the heritors to the
general trustees, but that there are now several cases where applications to the sheriff for the requisite certificates under the Act will shortly be made.

DERVAIG SCHOOL, MULL (HEADMASTER).

Mr. AMMON: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the parents of the children attending the Dervaig School, Mull, have petitioned against the appointment of a successor to the late headmaster on the grounds that the new appointee is considered not to be sufficiently qualified to maintain the discipline and educational standard of the school; and will he inquire into the complaint against the local education authority?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

HOUSING SHORTAGE, PERTH.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the housing shortage in the city of Perth; that new stables are being built to accommodate 66 horses at the annual Perth Hunt races; that these stables, or some of them, will only be occupied four days each year; and whether he can take any steps to ensure that the available supply of building materials and labour shall be utilised for the provision of housing accommodation before being consumed in new racecourse stables?

Major ELLIOT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remaining parts of the question I have no power to intervene as suggested and I may remind the hon. Member that in 1924 a Committee representing all parties in the building trade definitely recommended that there should be no restriction on private or commercial building work. I understand that these particular buildings have already been completed; that they were built largely with unskilled labour and that their erection did not in point of fact interfere with the progress of City housing schemes.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that these stables are built of brick, and will not this take away all these materials,
supplies and the use of labour which otherwise would have been utilised in house building; and do these things not seriously affect the shortage of houses in Perth?

Major ELLIOT: My attention has been frequently drawn by the lion. Member to the extreme inadvisability of allowing any unskilled labour to be employed on house building.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is not that a complete perversion of my point of view, and may I repeat the question I put as to whether the use of bricks for building stables for a racecourse, which will only be in use for four days each year, is not a waste of material which might have been used for building houses?

Major ELLIOT: There is no question of wasting material if it is being used for other purposes. If the material is needed for housing purposes, it will be used for those purposes, but if it is not needed for houses it would be the height of folly to condemn these men to unemployment.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Labour has succeeded in placing in training a large number of men in the building trade, and that these men have not yet been absorbed in regular employment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not a fact that there is a great shortage of houses in Perth, and is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the report issued by the Scottish Board of Health shows that the children who live in four-roomed houses have a chance of 20 years more life than the children who are reared in single-room apartments; and is it not time, when you have put, out such a report, that you should put your foot down here, and stop people building stables when houses are required? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

FATAL ACCIDENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 21.
asked the Secretary of Mines if he can give
the number of fatal accidents in the mining industry of Great Britain per 10,000 men for 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25; and if he can obtain similar figures for the Russian mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The number of separate fatal accidents in the mining industry of Great Britain was at the rate of nine per 10,000 persons employed in 1923, 1924 and 1925. At Russian mines the corresponding numbers were eight in the year ended September, 1924, and 10 in the following year. Particulars for 1922–3 are not available.

MINERS AND TECHNICIANS (HOURS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the average hours actually worked by underground miners and technicians in this country during the past year, and if he can obtain similar figures for the Russian mines?

Colonel LANE FOX: Workmen employed underground at coal mines in this country in 1925 worked about 7½ hours daily, with the exception of deputies, pump-minders, fanmen and furnace men, who worked about 50 minutes a day more. To many districts, however, the working time on Saturdays is usually less by an hour or more, and in a few districts the pits are customarily idle on alternate Saturdays. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and gallant friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth on the 8th June.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. PALING: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any eases of silicosis have been reported which are alleged to have been caused through operating the stone-dusting regulations applying to coal mines?

Colonel LANE FOX: The allegation has occasionally been made but every case in which it has been made has proved on investigation not to be silicosis.

FIRST-CLASS CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY.

Mr. PALING: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many of the 1,954 persons gaining first-class certificates of competency under the Coal Mines Regula-
tion Act, 1911, were workmen qualifying under the five years' period, and how many were students holding a diploma in mining science and qualifying under the three years' period?

Colonel LANE FOX: The statistics required are not readily available, and will take some time to prepare. I will send them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in view of Section 21 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, what is being spent out of the Miners' Welfare Fund, because it is very important that we should have this information?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am all in favour of the information being made public. There will not be any OFFICIAL REPORT in a few days time, but I will send the hon. Member the information if he will put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

COAL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HAYES: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Liverpool Coal Merchants' Association, the local coal control agent, is empowered to fix prices at which the coal is to be sold to the public, with or without reference to the Government; whether the association makes any return to the Government of prices paid and prices obtained from the public; and whether his Department is taking any steps to afford the fullest protection to the public against further exploitation?

Colonel LANE FOX: The Government have not exercised or delegated any powers of control over retail coal prices, and do not receive returns of wholesale or retail coal prices from the Liverpool Coal Merchants' Association. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney on Tuesday last.

Mr. HAYES: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Lancashire coal was delivered at Aintree, near Liverpool, during May at 32s. per
ton; that the Liverpool Coal Merchants' Association stepped in, making it impossible for fuel to be had otherwise than through them at the immediately increased price of 40s. per ton; that the price was further increased to 60s. in early July; whether he is aware of the differences in selling prices in Ormskirk and Aintree, where the price is 2s. per cwt., whereas the Association compelled the selling price in Liverpool to be 3s. 6d. per cwt.; and whether he will take such steps as will prevent the public being exploited in this matter?

Colonel LANE FOX: My inquiries into this matter are not yet complete, but I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as they are. I may say that on Bank Holiday it is very difficult to obtain information.

SHILBOTTLE COLLIERY.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there are any collieries run by other than private enterprise in this country; and, if so, whether he can give the House any particulars as to the financial results of their working?

Colonel LANE FOX: So far as I am aware, the only colliery which might answer to this description is Shilbottle Colliery, owned by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Limited. I have no detailed information in regard to the working results of this colliery, and, in any case, Section 21 of the. Mining Industry Act, 1920, forbids the publication of information in respect of any particular undertaking.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the very interesting account of the working of the Shilbottle Colliery which appeared in the Press is approximately correct?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have seen that account, and, as far as I know, I believe it to be substantially correct.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who are the proprietors of this colliery, did not put up any notice of reductions of wages?

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not know anything about that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he does know?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the Shilbottle Colliery, as against every other undertaking in this country, the men have not had their wages reduced?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the result of that has been that the financial results of the Shilbottle Colliery have been appalling?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Members are stating their own opinions.

Mr. GREENALL: Which are absolutely false.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).

Commander FANSHAWE: 69.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecustions of miners have taken place in Warwickshire both under the Emergency Regulations and the ordinary law; and how many miners have been imprisoned on account of these prosecutions?

Mr. LAWSON: 72.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions in connection with the mining dispute there have been under the common law during June and July in the mining area of Warwickshire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): The total number of persons prosecuted in Warwickshire for offences connected with the industrial dispute between 8th May and 31st July is 67–21 in May, 26 in June, and 20 in July. The total number of miners prosecuted is 48. The total number of persons sent to prison is 16, of whom 12 were miners. In July there was only one prosecution which resulted in imprisonment.

Mr. TAYLOR: Do the figures just given include convictions under the old 18th century Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, they include all convictions both under the old Act and under the Emergency Regulations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number prosecuted under the Common Law and under the Emergency Powers Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I have the number under the Emergency Powers Act in Warwickshire for July, but I have not the differentiation between the Emergency Powers Act and the old Act.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is what is asked in the question.

Captain HOPE: Is it not a fact that the relations between the police and the miners in Warwickshire during the whole of the dispute have been excellent all through and that all the complaints have been engineered by the circumstances which has been there in the past 10 days?

CONVICTIONS (PRECISE CHARGES).

Captain BENN: 71.
asked the Home Secretary whether lie will grant a Return showing the precise words in respect of the use of which persons have been convicted under the Emergency Regulations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think it would be practicable to publish a Return which would be satisfactory for the purpose the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. Apart from the difficulty of collecting records that would be accepted as authentic, utterances of the kind that are in question cannot be fairly judged apart from their whole context and some account of the circumstances in which they were delivered. If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind individual cases and will submit particulars, I will look into them.

Captain BENN: If the charge is made in respect of the use of seditious words, what is the difficulty in publishing the seditious words on which a conviction has been obtained?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said in my reply that the mere publication of the four or five words, apart from their context, would not be satisfactory for the purpose which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. The question which the magistrates have to decide is whether the speech was in itself seditious in the circumstances in which it was delivered.

Captain BENN: Is not the charge framed in respect of using certain words?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must have notice in regard to the actual words of the charge. That would probably be the form of the charge.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the ordinary
laws and Regulations are quite sufficient without having these special Emergency Regulations operating?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That was debated very fully last week, and the Rouse came to the conclusion that it was desirable, at the present, at all events, to continue the Regulations.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Would there be any difficulty in making a return of the actual charges?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think there would. It would involve applications and searches through every single charge made in the last three months in scores of Police Courts throughout the country. While the emergency is in existence it would be, I think, an unwarrantable difficulty to put upon the police forces of the country?

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether in a case where a conviction has been secured, the words of the charge could be published?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have never known at all of any such charge being made in regard to a conviction.

MINEILS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Bolton Board of Guardians has decided to continue their refusal to grant outdoor relief to miners' wives and children, one of the grounds being that a decision of the board could not be altered for six months after the date of such decision; and whether he will intervene in such a way as to remove this obstacle to a change in the board's policy if they so desire?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of the decision of the Bolton guardians and that a motion for its rescission, which was fully discussed and rejected by 27 votes to 15 on the 14th July, was ruled out of order on the ground suggested on the 28th July. It is not in his power to intervene in the manner suggested, but he has no doubt that if the majority of the board desired to alter the present decision some way would be found of dealing with any difficulty arising from their Standing Orders.

Mr. DAVIES: Am I to understand from the answer given that it is competent for this board of guardians, if they so desire, by a majority to alter their decision, in spite of the Standing Order?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. What I said was that if a majority of the board desire to come to some new conclusion, there would probably be no difficulty in arriving at that.

Mr. GREENALL: Is the hon. Member aware that the chairman of the board pointed out that it was impossible for them, even by a majority, to rescind that resolution?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it competent for this board of guardians to decide that they will alter any decision before six months have elapsed Is it competent for them to do so by the law of the land?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. I suppose it is competent for any board to lay down its standing Orders and to abide by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HACKNEY CARRIAGE STANDINGS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of taximeter-cab ranks in London in 1913–14, 1919–20 and 1925?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The figures for hackney carriage standings in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police areas are as follow:

In 1913–14, 726 standings accommodating 6,797 carriages.
In 1919–20, 692 standings accommodating 6,539 carriages.
In 1925, 702 standings accommodating 6,157 carriages.
These figures are independent of the accommodation provided on railway station premises.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of increasing the number of stands for taxicabs?

Sir W. J0YNS0NHICKS: I am always willing to increase the number of stands, but the difficulty is to find places for them.

Colonel DAY: If they had more stands, would it not save them from the necessity of prowling about the West End?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that does not always follow.

ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC SYSTEM.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether there have been any and, if so, how many accidents to pedestrians as a result of the roundabout system of traffic in various parts of London?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. I will circulate a statement of the number of accidents to pedestrians which have occurred, as far as known to the police, at each of the places where the system has been introduced, but it is impossible to say whether any and, if so, how many, of these accidents have occurred as the

Place.
Date of Institution of Gyratory System.
No. of Accidents.


Parliament Square
…
…
4th January, 1926
…
…
…
16


Queen Victoria Memorial
…
…
25th January, 1926
…
…
…
4


Hyde Park Corner
…
…
22nd March, 1926
…
…
…
13


Aldwych
…
…
12th October, 1925
…
…
…
8


Trafalgar Square
…
…
26th April, 1926
…
…
…
11


Piccadilly Circus
…
…
26th July, 1926
…
…
…
—


King Street, Hammersmith
…
…
26th July, 1926
…
…
…
—









52

MITCHAM LANE.

Mr. MELLER: 31
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the dangerous condition of Mitcham Lane, Mitcham, near the railway bridge; whether any steps have been taken with regard to the widening of the road and bridge at this point; and, if so, when the work is expected to be commenced?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Surrey County Council have recently submitted an improvement scheme with regard to this. road. The scheme is under consideration by my Department, and negotiations on the subject are now proceeding with certain of the interested parties. I cannot say when the work will be begun.
result of the introduction of this system. I am glad to say none of the accidents has been fatal.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there have been any accidents adjoining the Houses of Parliament since the introduction of the roundabout system?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question was answered last week.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statistics he is going to publish bear out the fact that there has been a considerable reduction in the number of accidents since the introduction of this system?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be better to wait for the information which I am going to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:—

STEEL TYRES (ROAD DAMAGE).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the damage done by vehicles fitted with steel tyres to main roads in the county of Berkshire, and whether he proposes to take action in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the damage caused to roads by heavy vehicles fitted with unsuitable tyres is under consideration, and steps have been taken to encourage as far as possible the fitting of such vehicles with rubber tyres or pads.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is not my right hon. Friend going to put into force the legislation that has been promised?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot put anything into force until legislation has been passed. I have promised to consider the matter and to deal with it when legislation is brought forward.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Was not this legislation promised last year, and is it not time that something was done?

Colonel ASHLEY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware, that without legislation, I have induced the Showmen's Guild and the Traction Engine Owners' Association to fit indiarubber tyres on the wheels of their vehicles, which has helped very considerably?

SOUTH MIMMS (ROADS).

Colonel APPLIN: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the condition of the roads in the South Mimms area, particularly the Blanche Farm Road, in the vicinity of the hospital; whether he is aware that the destruction of these road surfaces is mainly due to the heavy traffic in connection with the construction of the Barnet by-pass road; and will he consider an early grant from the Road Fund to enable the South Mimms district council to repair the damage done or, as an alternative, approach the arterial road contractors to re-surface these roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the state of these roads, regarding which negotiations are proceeding between the highway authorities and the contractors for the new arterial road. My officers will do all in their power to facilitate a settlement.

ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when maps will be available to the public showing the new trunk and other roads which have been completed during the past three years?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Revisions of Ordnance Survey maps are continually in progress, and, both in these revised maps and in reprints, the information as to new trunk or other roads is brought up
to date. Examples are to be seen in a number of maps on the small scale of the south of England.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend say when the last map was issued?

Mr. GUINNESS: The whole of the country is gradually being re-mapped. I could supply the date of the latest map of any particular area if my hon. Friend would give me notice. Generally speaking, the towns where development is going on are mapped twice as frequently as the country districts, where small changes are taking place.

LAND RECLAMATION.

Mr. TINKER: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give an estimate of the extent of land which could profitably be reclaimed in England and Wales?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) on the 28th April last, a copy of which I am sending Lo him.

AIR TRAFFIC AGREEMENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can report any further progress in the negotiations for the new British-German air-traffic agreement and why, seeing that the Franco-German air-traffic agreement has already been signed and is in operation, the Anglo-German agreement has been so long under negotiation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, the text of the proposed agreement has been referred to the other Government Departments concerned in this country, and I hope that it will be possible to submit an agreed draft to the German authorities at a very early date. As regards the second part, negotiations for an air traffic agreement between this country and Germany were already in active progress before the recent Franco-German agreement was drafted, and, when the latter agreement was drafted, the German authorities requested that it, and not the British
draft already submitted, should be taken as the basis of the desired British-German Agreement. This involved fresh consideration and consultation in regard to the new text. Every effort has been and is being made to expedite the conclusion of the agreement.

Commander BELLAIRS: Are these air route agreements negotiated by the Air Ministry or by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

Sir S. HOARE: All foreign agreements are negotiated through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but in a case of this kind he would obviously consult the Air Ministry.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (HOURS FLOWN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many hours flying were done by units of the Royal Air Force during last year; how many hours during the previous year; and whether he can give corresponding figures for the Home Defence Force only?

Sir S. HOARE: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the actual number of hours flown in the Royal Air Force, but I may say that the number of hours flown in 1925 by all units was materially larger than the corresponding figure for 1924, whilst those flown by Home Defence Units show a still greater increase.

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE (INDIANISATION).

Mr. AMMON: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the principle established by the Amendment to the Government of India Act last January, to Indianise the Indian Civil Service to the extent of 50 per cent., is being carried out?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Report of the recent Royal Commission on the Superior Services in India recommended that recruitment for the Indian Civil Service should be directed to produce a 50–50 cadre of Europeans and Indians in about 15 years' time. This recommenda-
tion has been accepted by His Majesty's Government, and effect is being given to it. The Government of India (Civil Services) Act of 1925 had no reference to the Indianisation of the Services.

Mr. AMMON: Have any appointments yet been made in India with this basis in view?

Earl WINTERT0N: Yes, constantly, ever since the Reform Act of 1919, and the Government of India are working up to that basis.

ARMAMENTS (GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. RENNIE. SMITH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the members of the League of Nations have agreed that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections, and that they have undertaken to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval, and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes, he can see his way to publish a White Paper giving details of the manufacture of armaments in this country by Government and private firms?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. The Armaments Year Book published by the League of Nations contains full information on British military, naval and air armaments and on the British industries capable of being used for war purposes. In the circumstances, I do not think that there is any object in publishing a White Paper covering the same ground.

POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS (FINANCE RETURNS).

Mr. HARDIE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider bringing in legislation compelling political parties and associations to give a return of their finance on the same basis as trade unions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

COINAGE.

Mr. JACOB: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the proposed new silver coinage, whether he can sec his way to withdraw from circulation the inconveniently small three-penny piece and to issue a larger coin, of nickel, of the value of one-hundredth part of the pound sterling, as a further step towards the gradual decimalisation of the British monetary unit which was commenced when the florin was issued about 70 years ago as one-tenth of the pound?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no proposal to alter the existing silver coinage, though from time to time slight alterations in the designs are considered. I fear that the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of the farthing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is proposed to abolish anything.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the abolition of the threepenny bit would have a very serious effect on the collections in churches and chapels?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will certainly take into account all relevant considerations, but there is no intention to abolish the threepenny bit, which is extremely popular, especially in the northern portions of the country.

Mr. JACOB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the absence of a decimal system of coinage is a great handicap to British business undertakings, greatly increasing their working expenses, and is there any chance of his taking a further step towards a decimal coinage in the near future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It seems to me that this would be a very good subject for a private Member's discussion some time next year.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether be will be able, at some early date, to issue for currency silver coins with such of the newly designed reverses as have received the approval of the Committee which has recently been sitting to consider them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether when the issue of an improved silver coinage comes up for decision, he will advise reducing the size of the present copper coinage or of substituting nickel tokens such as have already been adopted in some of the Colonies and in many foreign countries; and what average annual saving could be effected by reducing the size of our copper coins by one half?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Acton yesterday. In reply to the last part of the question, the issues of new copper coin since 1922 have been small. On the basis of the pre-War demand (about £160,000 a year), and assuming that it were practicable to reduce the weight of the metal at present used in the coins by one-half, the saving would not exceed £15,000 a year.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the weight of the coppers of necessity carried by an omnibus conductor?

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Will any change be made in the proportion of alloy to silver?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member means by that, can we improve the, quality of our silver coinage, I regret to say in these hard times these luxuries must he forgone.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONES (INSTALLATION DELAYS),

Colonel DAY: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General the average period of time elapsing between an application for the installation of a telephone and the time of such installation?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I regret that the statistics available do not permit of the computation of the average desired by the hon. Member.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases agreements were signed last January, and the subscribers' names appeared in the "Telephone Directory" last April, but they are still not connected?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that there are certain exceptional cases, but comparatively speaking the number is very small.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the names of subscribers do not appear in the "Directory" until their telephones have been connected?

MORNING LETTER, DELIVERY, GRIMSBY.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will inquire into the possibilities of an earlier morning delivery of letters on the Grimsby fish docks?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Arrangements were made in March last for the morning delivery in the Grimsby fish docks to be completed by 8 a.m., about half an hour earlier than before. This time is now usually maintained unless the train service is unpunctual or the mails are exceptionally heavy.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in pre-War times the first delivery was one hour earlier than it is to-day?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was not aware of that. The delivery now is as early as it can be in view of the train service.

HUDDERSFIELD POSTMASTERSHIP.

Mr. J. H. HUDSON: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that at the General Post Office at Huddersfield there has been no promotion to a postmastership for 40 years; whether there is any similar case in other large post offices; and whether he can account for the apparent differentiation against Huddersfield?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative: to the second part that applications for postmasterships are considered on their individual merits and not with the object of equalising the number of appointments given to different offices: and to the
third part, that I find that during the last two years only three Huddersfield officers have been making applications for Postmasterships. The majority of their applications were for posts carrying salaries considerably in excess of their present salaries, and they were therefore competing with candidates of longer service and superior all-round qualifications.

WIRELESS INTERFERENCE (SHIPS' TRANSMITTERS).

Colonel DAY: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the annoyance experienced by wireless listeners in coastal districts, owing to the use of spark transmitters by ships; and whether any action can be taken with a view to abating this form of annoyance?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that wireless communication between ship and shore does at times interfere with broadcast reception, especially when unselective receiving apparatus is used. The abolition of spark transmission from ships would require international agreement, and I hope that it may be possible to achieve this, when financial conditions at home and abroad in the shipping industry improve. Meanwhile however improvement can be effected by making receiving apparatus more selective.

Colonel DAY: Are negotiations taking place at the present time for the abolition of this method of transmission?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As the hon. Member knows, an International Radio-Telegraphic Conference is to be held at Washington next year, when this, among other matters, will no doubt be considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no demand at all from listeners in the country, through their association, for the abolition of this marine signalling?

TFLEGRAPP MESSENGERS.

Colonel APPLIN: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the loitering of telegraph boys when delivering messages; and whether, as a check to this delay, he will consider issuing red arm-bands to be worn by all telegraph boys when actually carrying a message?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Arrangements are in force for the supervision of telegraph messengers so as to prevent loitering, and they usually prove effective. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any specific instances of loitering in mind I will be happy to investigate them on receipt of particulars. Post Office messengers regularly employed wear a distinctive uniform, and I do not think that a red arm-hand in addition would be any more effective in preventing loitering while a telegram was being actually carried.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not the fact that the distances are measured and the boys timed out and in, so as to keep a check on loitering?

TRUNK TELEPHONE CALLS (FEES).

Colonel APPLIN: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of reducing the fee charged for the second three minutes of a trunk telephone call to half the original trunk fee, taking into consideration that the original fee covers the time and expenses of making the call and establishing connection and that the second fee only covers the extra three minutes the lines are in use?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The difference in the cost of a three minutes and a six minutes call varies according to the method of operating and the length of the telephone circuit used; and this was duly taken into account in fixing the trunk tariff. The difference is, however, much less than is implied in my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which I am unable to adopt.

FRENCH WAR DEBT SETTLEMENT.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new French Government has informed him of their acceptance of the Debt settlement arrived at with M. Caillaux?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been informed by M. Poincaré that he will ask the Chamber to ratify the British Debt Agreement as soon as possible and at the latest as soon as the Chamber meets in the autumn.

Captain BENN: Will that mean the inclusion of the two letters exchanged between the right hon. Gentleman and M. Caillaux?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, they are integral parts of the settlement.

ESTATES (ONE-MAN COMPANIES).

Colonel DAY: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the increasing practice of administering estates by registration as a one-man company in order to secure a reduction of the death duties; and whether any action is being taken in this regard?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been drawn to cases of the type alluded to. The effect of such action on the revenue will be carefully watched.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Sir F. WISE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount paid in Poor Law relief in England and Wales for 1925 and from 1st January to 31st March, 1926, and from 1st April to 30th June, 1926?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply to this question. Figures for indoor relief during the periods mentioned are not yet available. The total amounts of domilicilary Poor Law relief given in money and kind in England and Wales were

£


In the year ending December, 1925
14,550,356


In the quarter ending March, 1926
4,123,738


In the quarter ending June, 1926, approximately
5,545,000

NATIONAL SAVING CERTIFICATES.

Sir F. WISE: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of National Savings Certificates taken up and the amount repaid from 1st May to date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: From 1st May to 24th July the sale of certificates was £6,611,982 and the amount of principal repaid £7,476,895.

Colonel DAY: Does that show an increase on last year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have not the figures for this year, but last year was a substantial improvement on the year before.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS (PRINTING COST).

Sir F. WISE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated expenditure in printing Bills brought in by private Members?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Bedford Division on 22nd July.

FEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

Mr. SEXTON: 66.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Federation of British Industries, which is a registered organisation, what is the total income contributed by its members, and the total amount of expenditure in management and legislative purposes, respectively?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Shoreditch. The Federation is not a registered organisation, but is incorporated under Royal Charter, and is under no obligation to submit its accounts to any Government Department.

Mr. SEXTON: Why is it not returned as are the trade unions?

POLICE FORCE (WAR BONUS AND PENSIONS).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the War bonus of the police can be reckoned as part of their annual pay and pensionable, as was recently decided in the case of Poor Law officers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have nothing to add at present to my reply on 22nd July.

SMOKELESS FUEL.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can report on the work done by the fuel research station with regard to the, discovery of a smokeless fuel suitable for domestic purposes?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Work on the production of smokeless fuel is progressing steadily at the Fuel Research Station so far as the coal shortage will allow. The whole question is discussed in the Annual Report of the Director of Fuel Research for 1925, which will be published during the autumn. Developments during 1926 have been promising, and will be dealt with in a special report.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: This is purely on a laboratory scale. Can the noble Lord say how much coal is used?

Lord E. PERCY: I suppose it is not a question of the amount of coal, but of the quality of the various coals experimented with.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. SCURR: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is expected that the Report of the Extraterritoriality Commission in China will be completed?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The members of the Commission are now considering their Report, but I cannot say when it will be completed.

MIXED COURT, SHANGHAI.

Mr. PONS0NBY: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the foreign Consular body in Shanghai has negotiated an agreement with the Chinese- authorities for the rendition of the mixed court at Shanghai; whether he will state the terms of this agreement, and whether it requires ratification by the Powers concerned before
it can become operative; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of its ratification?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A committee of the Consular body at Shanghai and a Chinese committee have reached a preliminary agreement on the subject of rendition of the mixed court; this agreement, the terms of which have not yet reached me, will require ratification by the diplomatic body and the Chinese authorities. His Majesty's Government are in favour of rendition.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the public importance of the work of the Sub-committees of the Preparatory Commission for the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, he can see his way to publish the work of these Committees in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Subcommittees of the Preparatory Committee have not yet completed their work. When they have done so and have made their Report, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

VISAS (RUSSIA).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the refusal of a visa to Mr. F. J. Cansfield by the Soviet Government of Russia on the ground that he was a member of the British Mission to Petrograd in 1918; and whether, in view of the number of Soviet subjects permitted to enter Great Britain, he will take steps to secure reciprocity for British subjects in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. Representations have been made to the Soviet Government on Mr. Cansfield's behalf, but so far without success. The rights of British and Russian subjects to visit each other's countries are defined by the Trade Agreement, under which both Governments reserve, and from time to time exercise, the right to refuse
entry to any individual whom they may consider undesirable.

LUNACY LAWS (HARNETT v. FISHER).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 81.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the recent decision in the Court of Appeal in the case tried in April last of Harnett v. Fisher, from which it results that if any sane person is wrongfully shut up in an asylum for six years he is debarred from redress; and will he at an early date initiate legislation to remove this?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is advised that the deduction which the hon. Member draws from the decision of the Court in this case is too wide. As regards legislation, my right hon. Friend can add nothing to the answer given on the 3rd of May to the hon. Member for West Leicester, beyond saying that he has under consideration the recent Report of the Royal Commission on lunacy law and administration.

PLAYING GROUNDS (SCHEMES ASSISTED).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 84.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Grants Committee have at any time given assistance towards schemes for laying out playing grounds for the people; and if so, where and to what extent

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel - Maitland): Yes, Sir; various local authorities have obtained grants for such work, the total cost of the schemes approved on the last five to six years being about £5,750,000.

TRADE UNIONS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that neither the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, nor the unions comprising it, are under any legal obligation to render to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies or its members any financial statement in regard to the political funds collected by unions for the Miners' Federation of Great Britain; and will he take steps to make the inclusion of such information compulsory?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the position to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in the first part of the question. With regard to the last part, I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject of the amendment of the law as to trade unions.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take steps to see that these unions may conform to the strict legal obligations imposed upon other unions?

Mr. LEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the same conditions apply to the Mining Association?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not at all sure that it does apply to the Mining Association, and, as far as I know, the Miners' Federation do not come under the obligation to submit accounts. I am speaking off-hand, and would like to verify the point. I am not sure that they come under any legal obligation to render accounts to the Registrar as is the case of an individual mining association.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these unions pay into the Miners' Federation, and in that way are not required to send in returns to the Registrar?

Mr. SEXTON: What is the difference between the Miners' Federation and the Federation of British Industries or the Stock Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is a great deal of difference.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Miners' Federation are entitled to spend their own money in their own way without interference?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not a question of interference with their right to spend their money; it is only a question of whether or not they should send a return to the Registrar of the way in which they spend it.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the figures for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the Tailors' and Garment
Workers' Trade Union, showing the total receipts, working expenses, officers salaries, allowances and expenses, and benefits paid to members, other than dispute pay, respectively; and what per centage of the total income has been spent on working expenses?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The annual return for the year ended 31st December, 1925, shows total receipts, £39,243 11s. 10d.; working expenses, £23,447 9s. 5d. (including £15,283 15s. 2d. as salaries and allowances to officers, etc., and branch secretaries); and benefits paid to members other than dispute pay, £9,855 3s. 3d. Of the total income 59˙75 per cent. has been spent on working expenses.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that many trade unions in this country spend a very large sum of money for the upkeep of trade boards and of the Whitley Council for the purpose of preventing strikes and lockouts?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: All I can say is that in this answer I have tried to be as fair as I possibly could to all sides while giving information.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the figures for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, showing the total receipts, working expenses, officers' salaries, allowances and expenses, and benefits paid to members, other than dispute pay, respectively; whether benefit funds of that union have been used as strike pay; and, if so, to what extent?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: The annual return for the year ended 31st December, 1925, shows total receipts, £132,889 16s.; working expenses,: £45,139 8s. 7d. (including £15,848 16s. 1d. as salaries and allowances of officers, etc., and branch secretaries); and benefits paid to members other than dispute pay, £40,425 2s. 10d. The Protection Fund, which apparently is the only fund ordinarily available for strike pay, was overdrawn at the 31st December, 1925, to the extent of £58,370 14s. 10d. To this extent, therefore, assets belonging to other funds have been used for expenditure from the Protection Fund. This fund, however, is used for many other items of expenditure than strike
pay, e.g., expenditure on account of wages boards, sectional joint councils, incapacity allowances,, legal defence, etc., and it is not possible to state to what extent benefit funds have been used as strike pay.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dispute pay is less than 30 per cent. of the total amount?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will try to get what information I can for the hon. Member.

Mr. BROMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better in the public interest if the railway union referred to withdrew from the operation of the Wages Board and so saved £7,000 a year of this expenditure?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the Minister think that the method of dealing with these benefits is strictly in accordance with the law?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. and gallant Member must put that question to the Attorney-General.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what benefits other than dispute pay are included in the £9,000?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: I cannot say without going to the Registrar, and I am not sure how much of the information at his disposal would cover these particular points. If the hon. Member wishes to put down a question, I will try and see what: information I can get.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Registrar has a tabulated form which he supplies to every trade union and which has to be filled up?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Oh, yes. It is on the right hand side of the page. I can show it to the hon. Member.

DUKE OF YORK'S COLUMN.

Captain BOURNE: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the nature and cost of the operations now being carried out on the Duke of York's Column.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): The work consists of repairing some defects in the bronze statue caused by the action of the weather. The cost is estimated at £60, including about £20 for the erection of the scaffolding.

Captain HOPE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think this is a good opportunity to remove the statue and make a road from the bottom of Waterloo Place to the Mall?

Captain HACKING: I am afraid that would cost more than the estimate.

YUGO-SLAVIA AND BULGARIA.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make any statement as to the dispute between Bulgaria and Yugo-Slavia; whether it is a fact that orders have been given to the Yugo-Slav military commanders to invade Bulgarian territory, and what action is proposed by the League of Nations and by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no confirmation of the report that the Yugo-Slav Government have ordered their troops to invade Bulgaria as a result of the recent comitadji incident at Kriva Palanka. There is, however, reason to suppose that in the event of Macedonian bands crossing the frontier in large numbers the Yugo-Slav forces would be ordered to pursue them back into Bulgarian territory. It is understood that the Yugo-Slav Government propose to bring the matter to the notice of the League of Nations. His Majesty's Government are closely watching developments.

Mr. BUXTON: Will His Majesty's Government in any ease inform the Yugo-Slav Government of its disapproval of any action which is not previously sanctioned by the League of Nations?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We do not know that any such action has yet been taken.

Mr. RILEY: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that the Press reports the intention of the Yugo-Slav Government
to enter Bulgarian territory; and if that be the case, will any action be taken to try to prevent any such thing?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I have already said, we are watching developments, but we have no reason to suppose that any such action will be taken.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

RE-ASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I should like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. First, what business it is proposed to take to-day, and, secondly, when the Lords Amendments to the Mining Industry Bill are to be considered?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the first four Orders to-day, and also the Lords Amendments to the Mining Industry Bill.

Captain BENN: When is it intended that the Minister of Health, shall make the statement as to the rate of subsidy for housing after the 1st October next, which he promised the municipal authorities he would make before the House rose?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand a question is put down for to-morrow.

Captain BENN: To-morrow is rather late, because if it is stated now that no statement is to be made, the matter might be raised to-night on the Adjornment. To-morrow will be too late.

The PRIME MINISTER: There will be much more time to-morrow.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take when the House re-assembles in the Autumn?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House will adjourn to-morrow until Tuesday, 9th November.
On the day Parliament re-assembles, and during the remainder of the same week, we shall take the Report and Third Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill,

and, if time permit on any day in the week, we shall take other Orders on the Paper.

On Tuesday, 9th November, the usual Motion to take the time of the House for Government Business will be moved.

Mr. MacDONALD: Are we to understand from the wording of the answer that the Government propose to take the Report and Third Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill in the first week after the Adjournment—and that the Prime Minister really expects to get it through in three days?

The PRIME MINISTER: Those are our hopes, under the shadow of the approaching holiday.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask when it is proposed to proceed further, if at all, with the Merchandise Marks Bill; and, secondly, when it is proposed to take the Bill down for presentation to-day to prevent bets being Placed abroad? Is the Prime Minister aware that the fiat-racing season will end before this Bill can be taken? The Bill will not come into operation and a great deal of revenue is going to be lost.

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to proceed with the Merchandise Marks Bill during the Autumn Session. With regard to the other Bill, we hope to be able to proceed with it also in the Autumn Session.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall he taken after Twelve of the Clock, and that, as soon as Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, or at Five of the Clock, if the Royal Assent shall have been reported before that hour, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 78.

Division No. 423.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander, E.E. (Leyton)
Atholl, Duchess of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balniel, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C.M


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hawke, John Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. Willliam


Berry, Sir George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bralthwalte, A. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pilcher, G.


Brass, Captain W.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hills, Major John Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel sir Assheton


Brittain, sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pr'ce, Major C. W. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Remnant. Sir James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rye, F. G.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandon, Lord


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Lieut,-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Couper, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jephcott, A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Craik Rt. Hon. sir Henry
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dtne, C.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stott. Lieut-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Dawson Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Locker-Lampson, G. [Wood Green]
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Drewe, C.
Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Templeton, W. P.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maclntyre, Ian
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elveden, Viscount
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fermoy, Lord
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watts, Dr. T.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S R.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meller, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moles, Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grace. John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore-Brauazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Gunston), Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nierd, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir




Harry Barnston.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromley, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dalton, Hugh


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barr, J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H. C.
Day. Colonel Harry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Clowes, S.
Dennison. R.


Bondfield, Margaret
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Duncan, C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Connolly, M.
Dunnico, H.




Fenby, T. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Gilliett, George M.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Naylor, T. E,
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hardle, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Kenworthy, Lt. -Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)
Hayes.


Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell

BETTING OVERSEAS (PROHIBITION) BILL,

"to prohibit the making with bookmakers of bets on events to be determined in Great Britain unless the bets are made in Great Britain," presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. McNeill; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.

Mining Industry Bill, with Amendments.

Amendment to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords],

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill [Lords],

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords],

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords],

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendments to

Heather Burning (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Parks Regulation Act, 1872." [Parka Regulation (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Third Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In the course of the De-bate on the Housing Bill of 1923, I expressed a view that, whenever any further housing legislation was introduced into this House, some preference ought to be given to the rural districts which had not had sufficient attention devoted to them up to that time, and this afternoon I am happy to carry those views into effect and to present to the House proposals which are designed to try and improve the accommodation for agricultural labourers and for other country workers. There are two features which, I think, distinguish the rural housing problem from the urban problem. One is that in the country districts we have a population which is, generally speaking, stationary, if not declining, and consequently you have not there the problem which you have in the towns of having to provide for a constantly increasing number of families. The other feature is that even in pre-War times the agricultural labourer was never expected, and, as a matter of fact, was never in a position, to pay an economic rent for his house. Perhaps to that fact must be ascribed the practical stagnation of house building in rural districts for a great number of years. That still remains approximately true, because, while the wages of agricultural workers have increased compared with what they were receiving before the War, yet those increases have by no means kept pace with the increase which has simultaneously taken place in the cost of living, and, as a matter of fact, although many things are cheaper in the country than in the towns, that cannot be said of new houses, for the position in the country makes house building there actually more expensive than it is in the towns.
Therefore, in looking at this problem of rural housing, one has to bear in mind
the peculiar difficulties owing to the great gap that exists between what the workers can pay and what would be an economic rent for a house built to-day. On the other hand, the problem is certainly strictly limited in its extent. At the same time, I do not want the House to suppose t hat I am under the impression that there is no shortage of houses in the country districts. As a matter of fact, there is quite a considerable amount of overcrowding in the country villages. Thai overcrowding has arisen partly from the fact—owing to the economic position I have described—that a large number of houses have gone out of repair and according to our modern ideas are uninhabitable—that does not always mean that then are uninhabited—and partly from the fact that in many districts, particularly near the large towns, there has been an invasion at the country by the town dwellers, whether because they could not find what they; wanted at the right price in their own areas or because they wanted to spend their week-ends in the country. At any late, the town dwellers, who can afford to pay a higher rent, have frequently taken possession of the new accommodation in the villages and have thus deprived the agricultural workers of the opportunity of getting improved houses. If, therefore, it were possible to provide a certain amount of new building to take care, as the Americans say, of the town dwellers and at the same time to bring up to modern standards the existing old houses in the villages, then I think one might say that the rural housing problem would be solved.
This Bill does not attempt to deal with the question of new building. That was the subject of attention in the Bill which was introduced by my predecessor, and lie dealt with it on a theory which, I observe, he has been recently expounding in another connection, namely, that the way to deal with difficulties of all kinds is to give a bigger subsidy. The subsidy, which was increased in the case of town houses under the Act of 1924 from £6 for 20 years as it was under the Act of 1923, to £9 for 40 years, was increased in the ease of agricultural parishes up to as much as £12 l0s. for 40 years. Even that has not been sufficient to produce any marked activity in the rural districts, but it has produced some. Up to the present about 200 local
authorities have submitted for the approval of the Minister of Health schemes for providing some 7,190 houses It is not a very large number, but still it is a contribution. It is, however, a very costly one. The capital value of the Exchequer contribution towards these agricultural houses may be put at about £220 per house and to that you have to add another £80 which is the capital value of the extra subsidy to be provided by the local authority.
I must say that, when I read that the Leader of the Opposition declared on Saturday that the Labour party felt itself obliged to oppose this Bill for the sake of common honesty, I could not help wondering what it was he saw in this Bill which caused him to put forward a ground for opposition that I can only describe as comic when he saw nothing deserving of censure in a scheme by which no less than £300 of public money is given to a comparatively small number of favoured individuals who occupy the agricultural houses subsidised under the Act of 1924. Perhaps we shall hear some elaboration of the argument this afternoon. I think it is obvious that, if you con get an equally satisfactory house for a subsidy of £100, it is a very desirable course to take.
There is another aspect of the case which I should not like to omit, although it is not perhaps quite of the same order of importance. Our country villages contain a great deal that is characteristic of old England in style and material and in the architecture of their cottages. To look at cottages, such as you may see in the Cotswold district in Gloucestershire, or in East. Kent, where I was the other day, is a constant pleasure, not only to country dwellers, but to town dwellers too, and I must say that it seems to me it would be something like an. act of vandalism if we were to destroy these reminders of an older and more picturesque world in order to replace them with buildings which, though they may be sensible, are of a different style and cannot be said to harmonise with their surroundings. It is not only an Aesthetic question. I cannot help feeling that the existence of an environment of this kind must do a great deal to preserve what I may call the genius of the place in the minds of the inhabitants. I believe it must encourage in the minds of the
parishioners a pride in their place and an affection for it which does prove a powerful counter to the attractions of the town. In that way the preservation of these old houses may do something to help to keep the balance between the town and the country which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) described yesterday as one of the most important social and economic problems of our time.
On those general grounds, it seems to me that there is a strong case for the underlying idea of the proposals in this Bill, namely, that we should devote ourselves now to an attempt to make it possible to recondition the old houses in the country and to bring them up to modern standards of comfort and of sanitation where they are substantially built. Of course, it will be asked: "Why do you propose to use public money in order to induce landlords to do what they ought to do themselves without public assistance?" The short answer to that question is that a good many of these landlords are people of small resources who have not the amount of capital which is necessary to make even such comparatively small alterations as we have in mind, and it is not likely, without seine extra stimulus, that they will do in the future what they have not found it possible to do in the past. On the other hand, the Bill is so drafted that the benefits arising out of this use of public money must go practically entirely to the tenants and not to the landlords.
I will now proceed to describe shortly the Clauses of the Bill, and I think the House will see that there has been an earnest, and I hope a successful, endeavour to put into the Bill every safeguard in order to make sure that these benefits shall go where they are intended to go and shall not be diverted in one direction or another. Clause 1 of the Bill enables local authorities to submit for the approval of the Minister of Health schemes for the improvement of houses in the country, and it provides that the schemes are to specify, first of all, the class of house to which the improvements are to be applicable£a class which is to be defined by value—secondly, the nature of the alteration, which is to consist not of ordinary repairs but of real structural alterations, such, for instance, as the addition of an extra
room, perhaps the raising of the roof, the enlargement of windows, the provision of a larder or a wash-house, the laying on of water or the insertion of a damp course—those are the sort of things that we have in mind—and, thirdly, the date by which the works of alteration are to be completed.
The second Clause defines the power of the local authority to give assistance and says that the assistance may be either by way of grant or by way of loan or by both. The assistance is to be given only to houses whose value after they have been altered does not exceed £400. On the other side, in order to make sure that this assistance shall not be used for such ordinary works of repair as re-papering and things of that kind, the assistance may not be given where the total cost of the alteration is less than £50. The local authority has power to refuse to give any assistance at all if they are not satisfied that the house, when it is completed, is going to be satisfactory for habitation, and a special provision has been put in which is intended to prevent the Clause being applied to slums. Further, there is a time limit on the operations of the Bill. Applications for assistance of this kind must be put in within a period of five years.
Where the assistance is by way of grant, the grant may be made either by way of lump sum or by way of an annuity. It must not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works, and it is also limited to a maximum of £100 per house. It is subject to various conditions which restrict the rent and limit the class of occupants. If any of these conditions are afterwards broken, then the grant: which has been given by the local authority becomes repayable, together with compound interest, and is made a first charge upon the house. Where the assistance is given by way of loan, the loan may be made on mortgage up to 90 per cent. of the value of the altered house, and advances may be made while the works are in progress up to an amount of 50 per cent. of the work which has at any time been done. A loan is not to be paid unless a. valuation has first been made of the property, on behalf of the local authority. In the Schedule will be found the rules governing the procedure of making applications for assistance of this kind,
and, as they are quite. straightforward, I do not think any comment or explanation on my part is necessary.
In Clause 3 we have the conditions which attach to dwellings for which assistance has been given by way of grant. It is there provided that for a period of 20 years the house must not be let to anyone whose income is not comparable with that of an agricultural worker, and, furthermore, during that period of 20 years, the rent is not to he more than the normal agricultural rent plus three per cent. upon the amount which has been expended upon the alterations by the owner himself. The normal agricultural rent is defined for the purposes of the Bill as the average rent paid during the preceding five years, if the house has been let as a separate dwelling. If it has not been so let, the local authority has to take what is generally paid in the district by agricultural labourers. As to the three per cent., I do not know whether that is to be a subject of animadversion by the Labour party, but I would ask the House to consider what it means. I do not anticipate that the expenditure contemplated by the Bill on any particular house can exceed £150. Out of that sum the owner will spend £50 of his own and 3 per cent. upon that £50, means an increase in the rent of 30s. a year. That is not a very formidable amount —

Mr. M0NTACUE: A week's wages.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —but I am bound to add that I think, in a large number of cases; the owner will not be able to obtain even an increase of 30s. a year. He will probably find that he has to charge the same rent as he has been charging hitherto, and he must get his satisfaction, not in any commercial return on his money, but in the consciousness that he has now got his people properly housed. It has been represented to me that these conditions might he a source of difficulty in a case where the owner died and the executors desired to sell the estate. They might desire to sell the estate free of any conditions of this kind. A proviso to Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 will be found to provide that, with the assent of the Minister of Health, the owner may rid himself of the conditions which he has undertaken, provided he repays to the local authority the
amount of the grant which he has received, together with compound interest up to date.
Clause 4 defines the Government contributions to the expenses of the local authorities. These contributions are only made in a case where assistance has been by way of grant. The Government contributions must not exceed one-halt of the assistance given by the local authority and, as the local authority's assistance is two-thirds of the total cost, it will be seen that we contemplate an equal division of the cost, one-third being borne by the Government, one-third by the local authority and the remainder by the owner himself. The Government's assistance, however, will not be given in a lump sum, but will be given by means of annual instalments extending over a period of 20 years, and where a condition has been broken, and the assistance given by the local authority has become repayable to that authority, the local authority, in its turn, is liable to repay to the Government any contributions hitherto made, together with compound interest. The same thing applies where the owner has got rid of the conditions by means of the repayment which I have already described to the House.
Clause 5 defines what is to be a local authority for the purposes of the Bill. I have given a good deal of consideration to this matter because it is one on which there will probably he some difference of opinion, and, in fact, there is a great deal to be said on both sides. That is to say, there is a good deal to be said for making the authority the county council, and there is also a good deal to be said for making the authority the district council or the non-county borough. It. will be seen there is a proviso that in certain special circumstances the Minister may, after consultation with the county council, substitute for that authority the council of the district, but, undoubtedly, I contemplate that in the majority of cases the work will lie done by the county council. I will tell the House why I have come to that conclusion. I think on the side of the district council it may be argued that the district council is likely to have a better knowledge of the actual conditions existing in the area, and that it does not want to have the ideas of the county council or the county council's architect stereo-
typed over the whole county. On the other hand, there are some weighty considerations in favour of the county council. To begin with, it has rather better borrowing powers than the district council. It must also be admitted that, at any rate in a large number of cases, it has a more competent and highly-trained staff, and I do not think there is likely to be any particular difficulty about the supervision which would be necessary, seeing that the operations of the Bill will be spread over a period of five years, and that the number of houses to be dealt with is strictly limited.
There is another point which has weighed a great deal with me. Where the county council is the authority, the expenses which it incurs will be spread over the whole area of the county, but if the authority is the district council, then the expenses will be charged wholly upon the area of the district council which, of course, in its turn, will be relieved of any county expenses in respect of other areas in the county. See what the effect of that is. It means that the local landowner is going to receive assistance towards the improvement of his houses, at the expense of his own immediate neighbours, whereas, if he is receiving it from the county councils, the expense is spread over the whole county. I am anxious, of course, that advantage should he extensively taken of the provisions of this Bill. If it is to effect its purpose that must be done, and I can quite conceive that in a good many cases a man might be very sensitive about this matter, and might hesitate before applying for assistance which everybody in the district would know had to be borne by that district and which would cause him, therefore, to be regarded as drawing assistance from his own neighbours and friends.
For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the county council is the best authority to undertake this work in the majority or cases, but I recognise that special cases may arise where it would be better that the district council should be the authority, and I think those will be provided for by the provision which gives the. Minister a certain amount of discretion. Clause 6 deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland and provides the necessary modifications for making the Bill applic-
able to that country, and Clause 7 does not require any special comment from me. That, then, is the Bill which I am submitting to the House. I do not put it forward as a startling or a revolutionary proposal, but I do think it is a practicable and serviceable proposition, which will do, in a short time, more than has hitherto been done to provide better accommodation for the agricultural worker, and will enable him to remain on the land, without subjecting him to conditions which injure either his own self-respect or the health of himself and his family.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day three months."
I do so, in the first place, as a protest against the political sharp practice in which the Government have indulged on two recent occasions in regard to questions affecting agricultural workers. A few Fridays ago we were stampeded into passing an Allotments Bill; to-day we being asked to give a Second Reading to an important Measure of this kind on the eve of the Adjournment. I think that is fair neither to this House, nor to the big questions of rural housing and allotments for agricultural workers. The right hon. Gentleman has told us this Bill is riot a revolutionary Bill, but it has two important features which call for a great deal more consideration than the House is able to give to it at this stage of the Session. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it gives new powers to county councils in respect of housing. I am not saying, at the moment, whether that is right or wrong; but it is a great departure from the existing state of the law and it raises questions which merit more consideration than I imagine they will receive to-day. The second feature is that, while it may not be revolutionary the Bill is, at least, disturbing to Members on this side of the House because, notwithstanding all the Minister has said, it is an attempt to make the land safe for the landlords. The right hon. Gentleman, fresh from his triumph over the West Ham Board of Guardians, has now introduced what is virtually a rural landlords' out-relief Bill. Because of the importance of the questions raised, submit the House would have been more
fairly treated if this Bill had been introduced earlier in the Session or had been postponed until the Autumn Session.
But greater than that objection is the objection to the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman referred to certain difficulties inherent in the problem of rural housing, such as the low wages of the agricultural worker and the low rateable value of local authorities in the country, on which he did not put much stress but which I regard as one of the most important difficulties in the way of publicly-provided houses. Then there is the peculiar difficulty of the tied house, which this Bill, no doubt, is intended to perpetuate, there are difficulties with regard to transport, there is the real difficulty that we have a much larger proportion of older houses in the country districts than in the towns, and there is a further difficulty in the character of the local authorities in the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is a really serious housing problem, a problem partly of overcrowding and partly of unsatisfactory housing conditions, two problems which have been complicated by the fact that the law of the land has never been carried out in the rural areas of this country. Twenty years ago a Select Committee of this House, which was considering the Housing of the Working Classes (Amendment) Bill, reported that the housing laws had never been enforced in the countryside, and the process of deterioration has gone on so long that the right hon. Gentleman is now compelled, in his view, to come forward and provide public money to get rid of the neglect of a generation. A further difficulty is the fact that the countryside has not had its fair proportion of the new houses that have been built since the War. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, as a result of the 1924 Act, some 7,190 houses have been built or are to be built — I am not quite sure which.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are to be built.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Some 7,190 houses are to be built in the rural areas under that Act. That, I think, is a real contribution. I am not at all certain that it is not a larger contribution to the housing of the agricultural worker than the houses built in rural areas under the Act
of 1923. I think that anyone who has paid attention to this question realises that the greatest need is the provision of more houses in the rural areas, but this Bill does not deal with new houses. This Bill is concerned only with improving the existing supply of houses, and, if it is to be successful, it is going to mean an enormous expenditure, because the standard of rural housing is already so very, very low. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that at least 5 per cent. of the rural cottages of this country could not be made fit under any circumstances, and I should think that there must be 20 per cent., or perhaps more, that can only be made moderately fit by substantial expenditure on them. I would like to quote the kind of conditions which were discovered in a rural district in the County of Essex. From 39 to 80 per Cent.—

Brigadier-General CLIFTON-BROWN: From what is the hon. Member quoting?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a Report which was made by the consulting medical officer of health for the County of Essex.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What year?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Report was published in 1919. It states:
From 39 to 80 per cent. (average 61 per cent.) of all the cottages have privies with cesspits.
From 10 to 96 per cent. (average 17.6 per cent.) have no private closet accommodation.
From 2 to 31 per cent. (average 13.6 per cent.) have no accommodation of any kind for storing food, and probably 99 per cent. have nothing which can be called a larder.
From 70 to 100 per cent. (average 96 per cent.) have no sink; and
From 60 to 95 per cent. (average 85 per cent.) have no proper water supply.
That is a deplorable state of affairs, which can be repeated in rural district after rural district in this country, and to attempt to deal with that problem by means of this Bill seems to me perfectly hopeless. What does the Minister propose to do? He proposes to make grants or loans to landlords. He desires to retain his reputation as a housing reformer, and at the same time give some practical assistance to the landed classes. This Bill is in direct descent from the private enterprise Housing Bill of 1923, against which Members of this House
protested, because it almost appeared to us that the right hon. Gentleman's first desire was to re-establish private enterprise in the building industry, and secondarily to deal with the housing problem. This Bill follows that line. It is a subsidy to private owners of houses, just as the 1923 subsidy has, in the vast majority of cases, gone into private hands. It is a plan for bolstering up neglected rural cottages. There may be something to be said for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I am going to admit that, but it is not the major problem, and it is not the way to deal with it. This is really, as I have tried to show, a dole to the landlords. It is, as my right hon. Friend pointed out only the other day, a subsidy to landlords by the Government that has refused, and finally refused, with indignation, to give any kind of substantial financial assistance to the key industry of this country.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: It has had:£25,000,000!

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a Bill that is going to fasten the tied cottage system, which is one of the greatest abuses of the countryside, round the neck of the agricultural worker. It is going to add to the amenities, the prestige, and the pleasantness of rural estates almost entirely by an expenditure of public money. Rural landlords will be able to get £150 worth of work done for £50, which, no doubt, will be an admirable thing for them, but is a robbery from public funds.

Major PRICE: Who are going to live in the cottages?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The people who live them now. Personally, 1 am strongly in favour of the improvement of the existing cottages in the countryside. I would rather see those sound cottages made to conform with modern standards than see the countryside strewn with Weir houses, which would be entirely out of keeping with country surroundings and have nothing in common whatever with local architecture and traditions. Let that he admitted. Our case against the Bill is not that the right hon. Gentleman is going to improve the existing cottages, but, first, that he is going to do it in the wrong way, and, secondly, that that in itself is not suffi-
cient. There are on the Statute Book today provisions to enable local authorities to deal with landlords in the country, as well as in the towns, who do not keep their houses in a proper state of repair. I would like to see that kind of provision extended. I would like to see the obligation on the landlords to maintain houses which are fit to live in strengthened in accordance with modern needs. Local authorities in the past have been far too tender to both town and country landlords. People have been permitted year after year, generation after generation, to inhabit bad houses. A milkman who dares to sell milk with water in it, or a butcher who tries to sell bad meat, could be and would be dealt with by the local authority, but a man, a landlord, may apparently let a bad house, and the local authority will permit him to continue to do so, and it seems to me that there ought to be stronger provision made to compel the fulfilment of reasonable standards of housing by the landlords of the country.
In my own view, and in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health himself, that is unlikely so long as these houses remain in private hands. The case is not exactly parallel, I admit, but after the War the right hon. Gentleman, who is now the Minister of Health, was then the Chairmen of a Ministry of Health Committee on Unhealthy Areas, and in his interim Report he made a suggestion for the improvement of existing houses and districts under public auspices, while in the final Report, so convinced was the right hon. Gentleman of the wisdom of this policy, that it was reaffirmed. The Report states:
Considerations of this kind draw us to the conclusion that the management of old property on the Octavia Hill system, which has in London raised the general standard of living very considerably among the tenants concerned, might be extended with advantage to the community, but we felt hound to add that we did not see how such extension could take place under the present system of private ownership. We found general agreement that, in spite of the powers given by various Acts of Parliament to local authorities to insist on the maintenance of an adequate standard in private property, it is not to he expected that areas will be satisfactorily improved under private ownership.
And the Report goes on:
Accordingly, we are confirmed in the opinion that the local authority must do
the work itself after the purchase of the property to be improved in the pursuance of a scheme.
That represents the policy for which we stand on this side of the House, and had the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the improvement of existing houses by the method of purchase by the local authorities, if necessary with State assistance, I, for one, would have been very glad to go into the Lobby with him.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report from which the hon. Member has lust quoted was dealing with slums in towns, not in country districts.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was aware of that, but it is quite irrelevant. What is the difference between a slum in the country and a slum in the town? What is the difference between one slum house and 20 slum houses? If the right hon. Gentleman, after considering the question in London and in other towns of the country, comes to the conclusion that the only solution is public ownership of those houses, why are we not entitled to say that the same principle should be applied to the rural landlords, whose misdeeds are even greater than those of the town landlords? [HON. MEMRERS: "No!"] Oh, yes. Some of the foulest slums in this country are in the country districts, and if there is a case for public ownership of these houses so that they can be put into a proper state of repair under public authorities, the case is even more strong in the rural areas than it is in the towns. But when everything is done that can be done to improve existing houses, we shall still be left with the major problem. I do not believe that more than a minority of the houses are likely to be put into a reasonable state of habitation in accordance with modern standards, and, therefore, there is a grave need for new houses.
There is a grave need for new houses also, because some of the alterations that are required to make that housing accommodation satisfactory would be so large as to fall outside the £100 limit. We have in this country an entirely inadequate supply of three-bedroom cottages. The number of three-bedroomed cottages in the country is relatively small in proportion to the needs of the population, but to add to the one-bedroom cottage, two bedrooms, even if it were practicable, is a proposal which is going
to be so costly as to put that provision and improvement—an essential, necessary and vital improvement—quite outside the bounds of this Bill. Therefore, we do need more houses.
The right hon. Gentleman opened his speech by referring to a statement which he made in 1923 when he introduced the Housing Bill of that year saying that he hoped that the next step would be to give a preference to agricultural houses. But he omitted to mention in his speech to-day what we did in 1924 when, for the first time in the history of our housing laws, some additional assistance was given to the agricultural parishes over and above that allowed to the remainder of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to belittle that effort, but it is producing some thousands of houses. But he says that it is a costly contribution. Then we come to one of the purposes of his Bill which I must confess I had not thought about until I heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This is a new Economy Bill. This is a bill which is going to do the job more cheaply than could be done by building new houses. These 7,000 houses built in rural areas under the Act of 1924 will be houses which will be publicly owned and which will, I assume, go to the people who need them. These houses will improve the standard of housing in the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman, while belittling that effort, has himself, not added one house to the number of houses in the country; he is doing very little indeed to improve the rural standard of housing. What he prefers to do is not to build new houses but, because it is cheaper to patch up old houses, he is proceeding with this policy of tinkering with the old houses. This is a Tinkers' Bill and not a Housing Bill. It is the most amazing Bill that has been before this House. Under the guise of a Title which is most misleading, it seeks to confer direct pecuniary benefit upon the most pampered class of the community, who happen to be the strongest supporters of the Conservative party.

Captain FRASER: How do they get pecuniary benefit?

Mr. GREENWOOD: To the extent of two-thirds of the cost of the improvement of their estates. It is perfectly true to
say that there is no section of our people who have been assisted more than the farmers and the rural landlords. They already escape their fair share of rates and taxes; they are permitted to continue abuses which would never be tolerated in the towns; they maintain conditions of employment which would never be tolerated in any industry other than agriculture; they are hankering after the full-blooded Protectionist system which the Government would give them if it dared. Notwithstanding all these benefits and all these hopes for the future, the members of that industry are now going to have their property improved, primarily at the expense of the public, and the sum which the right hon. Gentleman took away from the insured persons earlier in the year is to go to provide another additional subsidy to the many already enjoyed by the landlords of the countryside. In other words, the Government are pursuing their economy policy at the expense of the masses of the people and in order that their spoilt and petted supporters should receive direct financial benefit. The Bill is the most amazing piece of class legislation we have ever had. Masquerading under the Title of a Housing Bill, it is a Bill which does nothing more than improve property at the expense of the people for the greater glory of the landlord. I should have thought that if hon. Members opposite had considered this Bill seriously, they might have had some compunction about giving their support to it. The Bill is full of deceptions. Its principle is one with which we cannot possibly agree. It violates what we believe is an essential principle, that public money should not be devoted to the interests of private gain. If public money is to be devoted, it should he devoted under public auspices. Had the Bill even approached that method of dealing with the problem, our opposition to it would have been modified. But, as it is, regretfully we have to offer this Bill every opposition we can.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Bill will go further, even than other Measures which we have been discussing in connection with matters of subvention to certain classes in the community, to help the landlord class than probably any
other Measure that we have discussed during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: What do you know about it?

Mr. HUDSON: I know as much as anybody else, for I was brought up in a village and I know very well what Toryism in a village means.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: That was 40 years ago.

Mr. HUDSON: I desire, before I finish, to say a word or two about the attitude of Toryism and landlordism in the villages with which, I think, I am well acquainted. The subventions that are paid in connection with this Measure to the landlord class will be paid in connection with houses which have been recognised for many years past to be, perhaps, the worst disgraces in connection with our housing problem throughout the land. Bad as town slums are, bad as the overcrowding in industrial districts may be, the country cottages—not, be it noted, the country cottages in Chipping Campden or the beautiful villages of the Cotswolds or Yorkshire or East Kent—but the cottages scattered far away from the industrial centres, are known, hundreds and thousands of them, to have been breeding-places of disease these many years. They have been damp, they have no proper ventilation, in tens of thousands of them their walls suck up the moisture from the ground, and the people have been mouldering and rotting in them like the timberwork of the cottages themselves. It is in order to improve those things that this excuse is found to pay away into the pockets of private landlords large public moneys.
I was interested to note, when the Minister was introducing his Bill, that he assumed that the landlord was an extremely sensitive individual and that he would be loth to go to the local authority, had that authority been selected in too small an area, as possibly he would be known to them. That is not my experience. As one who has lived in a village and who has had to do with the local politics of a village, I know how the local landlord class for years past has been glad to improve its property through local rates, however small the area. But the Minister in this case is
willing to make it easier for the landlords to come for public money. He is willing to take a large county area which will provide the funds and, at the same time, many in that area will know nothing at al of the landlord for whose benefit ultimately these funds are paid. What justification can there be for this method of dealing with the rural housing problem? Those who sit on this side of the House, and especially those who have lived in the villages, are as keen as any Members in this House to see a very big improvement — an improvement even bigger than anything that may be suggested in the towns—in connection with the housing of our rural population. What we complain of in regard to this Bill is, that instead of frankly admitting that the landlord class in countless cases has shown its incapacity to own rural houses and has by its attitude created problems which now need to be got rid of, this Government bolsters them up in wrongdoing and provides means out of the public exchequer to make money out of the needs of the community.
5.0 P.M.
I notice that in another place yesterday, in discussing another question the Duke of Northumberland, when complaining of paying a 5 per cent. tax upon royalties for certain improvements in the miners' lot, asked why should not a compulsory levy be imposed on all landlords for the welfare of the agricultural labourers? The Duke need not have asked that question. There is no need, as this Bill shows, to put the levy upon the landlords to pay for the welfare of the agricultural labourer. What this Government does in this matter, instead of proceeding as it has done in connection with the pit-head baths, is to neglect the landlords with a capacity to pay a .5 per cent. levy and to place the general burden upon the community as a whole. There was no need to have done this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I observe has kept away from this Debate, knows well how the money might have been raised. He could have worked out how a levy might he placed on the agricultural landlords. His first speeches in the country, in the years that have gone, resounded with claims for special taxation upon the land in order to meet the special needs of the land either in this or in other directions. But he prefers, as, indeed, the Govern-
ment prefer, when they come to deal with this issue of rural housing, to forget all the complaints which they have made against the subsidy when practised in far more needful directions than this issue. At last the subsidy is put forward as the main, means for the settlement of our great social evils. The worst of it is that, when this process has been adopted, it is very likely that all the evil conditions now appertaining to tenure of country cottages will remain. This Bill does nothing to remove from the landlord the right to tie his cottage. He, probably, will get an improved cottage with the assistance of this Bill, and, instead of making the cottage available to the best type of labourer, he will still have the right to fasten it down, as he fastens it down at the present moment, not in the labourer's interest, but in his own interest. In fact, I go further and ask this question: Is it not likely, when you have paid what amounts to a subsidy to the rural landlord for the improvement of his cottages, that at the end of a period—and the period may not be longer than the period during which you tested the payment of a mining subsidy—you will discover that, instead of improving the agricultural labourer's condition, you will have missed as completely as you missed when you tried to deal with the miner's conditions in connection with the subsidy. A subsidy paid to private capitalists, for whatever purpose, will, in the long run, generally be used for the advantage of the private capitalists. That was proved in connection with the mining subsidy. It was not the miners, as was so well shown by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on this side, and in this case, also, you cannot prove that the farm labourer, in the long run, is going to be helped.
I do not know whether it is a fanciful suggestion, but I put this forward for what it is worth—I stand open to correction, and shall be glad to be corrected—that it will be possible, in connection with this Bill, for the week ender to put a tenant—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—let me finish what I was saying—for the week-ender to put a tenant into a country cottage for housekeeping purposes, let the cottage stand in the name of the caretaker, let the care-
taker put in the claim to the local authority for the granting of a loan to improve the property, and it will be possible to do it. Indeed, it is becoming quite the custom for the week-enders to put caretakers into these week-end cottages, and, unless something more, effective can be said than the mere negative of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, I shall still continue to feel that there is something in the contention I am putting before, the House.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this Bill would have no part in the perpetuation of the village slum. I am not so sure. One provision of the Bill says, that if you have got a row of agricultural labourers' cottages, or a series of them, you may raise a loan for drainage improvements on those cottages if it exceeds £100 for the lot. There may be 20 cottages for which you are going to make certain slight modifications of water supply, of drainage, of damp courses, and so on. You will not have removed the village slum by the expenditure of £100, or £110, on some 10, 12 or 20 cottages. You may make them fairly habitable for the people in those cottages, but, in the long run, you are perpetuating the slum; you are not really dealing with the root difficulties with which our village population is con fronted. It is very likely that in many villages in the country, under this Bill, the village slum will remain; indeed, the village slum will rather be strengthened in its position.
I object, as all of us on these benches object to this Bill, because the Government, while they have had an opportunity to deal radically with one of our great social evils have preferred, as my hon. Friend said, to tinker with that evil, and in the process to pay further grants to their friends the landlord class. Hon. Members make that charge a matter for laughter, but I assure them that, both in the country districts, where this issue is understood, and in the towns, where it is better understood than it used to be, the Tory party is coming to be understood as the party which always helps its friends, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer so well put it. The people in the towns, and more and more the working people in the villages, know that they are not the friends of the Tory
party, and it will be seen, in the practical experience of this legislation, that there will be a new accession of strength to those of us who are struggling for better conditions for the agricultural labourer, and the day of judgment is not very far distant.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I have had a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. Members who proposed and seconded the rejection of this Bill. I think it was the mildest thing in the way of cursing which has been done since the days of Balaam, and I have been wondering who could have played the part of that benevolent animal which arrested Balaam in the course of his journey. The fact is, it is pretty generally realised why this Bill is necessary. In the past, the cottages in the village have been provided at the expense of the landlord. Agricultural cottages have never been an economic proposition. They have never paid their way, and the difference between the rent which an agricultural labourer pays and what the landlord has to spend on the upkeep of the cottage, and the interest on the capital he has expended in building the cottage, is really a heavy subsidy which the landlord is paying for the benefit of the agricultural labourer. There are very few landlords who can afford to go on doing that now.
The hon. Member who has just sat down talked about a levy of 5 per cent. upon the landlords for the benefit of the agricultural labourers. The keeping up of cottages and the cost of the cottages amount to a great deal more than a 5 per cent. levy. Five per cent. is a trifle to what the cost of keeping up an agricultural estate is to a landlord. The hon. Member has spoken about the bad state of certain cottages. It is quite true. That is one of the reasons why this Bill has been brought in. You have a very good measure, as you go about the country, of the wealth of the man through whose property you are going, by the state of repair in which you find the cottages are kept. The need for this Bill is that very few landlords can afford to pay that subsidy any longer. It would not be in order to go into the various reasons why that has come about, but it is a fact that the subsidy is more than
they can now pay, and if you want to keep these cottages going, you have to fall back upon some other means than simply making a draft upon the pockets of the landlords.
The opposition to this Bill has been on the ground that the landlord would get too much out of it. Remember, that in addition to any grant which may be made, the landlord has got to spend a certain proportion, a third of the whole, out of his own pocket. On that third, he can only get 3 per cent., and that is for 20 years. I will undertake to say, that in almost every case, if, instead of spending the money in the improvement of the cottage, the landlord put it into the public funds he would, at the end of the 20 years, in spite of the subsidy, be a richer man than if he had spent the money on improving the cottages in this way. The loss which the landlord will incur in keeping a cottage going is much more than the subsidy can possibly compensate him. I have said he can only charge 3 per cent., and that if he put his money in any ordinary security, he would be a very much richer man at the end of 20 years than he would be by repairing his cottages.
My fear is, not that the landlords are going to get too much out of this, but that the terms are not sufficiently liberal to induce many landlords to touch it at all. But it is worth trying, and it is worth trying because no other alternative is suggested. I listened to the speeches of the hon. Members who proposed and seconded the rejection of the Measure. I tried to see if they had got any glimmering of a practical idea as to how what is an admittedly grave evil is going to be solved. The present schemes have been very little good indeed to the agricultural labourer. I have got the return from a rural district council. It is an entirely rural district, and the council is a fairly enterprising one, as anybody would acknowledge. Up to the beginning of last year, they had built 230 houses, out of which there were only 12 inhabited by farm labourers. There are heavy subsidies with all those houses. To whom is the money going which has been provided out of public funds on houses erected not by private individuals, but by the elected public authority? Let us see who gets the subsidy under conditions pretty closely approaching what hon. Members
of the Labour party want to bring about. For those 230 houses, the subsidy goes to 40 people of no occupation with private means, 37 railway employeés—I will not trouble the House with a long list—9 farmers, 7 school teachers, 6 rural postmen, 7 motor drivers, 4 grooms, 3 gardeners, 4 butchers, and a Congregational minister.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I ask whether those houses were built under the 1923 Act?

Sir R. SANDERS: Under the 1919 Act.

Mr. GREENWOOD: All of them?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think all of them. Those are the people who are getting the subsidy, and the reason is plain. These houses have to be let at a rent which is usually 7s. 6d., plus rates, and in no case is less than Cs. 3d., plus rates. That is a rent very few agricultural labourers can pay; and, moreover, these houses arc bigger than an agricultural labourer wants. I do not say that is so in every case, but the house which is generally put up by a district council is a bigger house than the agricultural labourer wants and bigger than his wife is prepared to look after. As to the 1924 Act, we cannot tell who arc going to inhabit the houses put up under that Act, but for those houses the rents will have to be 5s. 6d. plus rates, a total charge of nearly 8s. a week. How can an agricultural labourer afford to pay that? We know he cannot do it. The scheme of the late Minister of Health, which was designed specially to benefit the agricultural labourer, will not be sufficient for the purpose. We gave a big subsidy—it is an enormous subsidy—and yet we cannot get rent down to a level which will enable agricultural labourers to take the houses.
The problem has remained unsolved up to the present and that is the justification for this Bill. The liability on the houses under the Wheatley Act is a very heavy one indeed. The charge on public funds is about £300 a house—a very expensive matter to the country. What is now proposed is a Measure under which the expense will not be anything like so great. We are not landing ourselves in for anything like £300 a house. I think the expense will be about £100 a house, and in a great. many cases is
likely to be less. But that is not the only consideration, for what really matters is to get decent habitations for these labourers, which our legislation so far has failed to do, and which the legislation which is coming on—the 1924 Act—will fail to do, as far as we can foresee. No other solution is proposed from the benches opposite. Now the right hon. Gentleman has brought in this Measure let us give it a trial. The risk under it is very small. The fear is that it may not be very largely adopted, but even in that case it has done no harm to anybody, and, personally, I think there are a considerable number of estates on which the landlord will avail himself of it. He will get no pecuniary benefit himself, but he will be doing some service to the community, and the Bill will enable him to help a class which gets too little of the help that is given by this House, though not the least deserving of those who work with their hands. It is because I think the Bill will help those who are not too often helped by Parliament that I am anxious to support it in every way I possibly can.

Mr. CHRISTIE: As one who has been chairman of a housing committee and as the representative of a purely agricultural area, I welcome this Bill very heartily indeed. We have spent a great deal of money in building houses under the existing Housing Acts, and our ratepayers are alarmed at the amount of our indebtedness. If some such Measure as this be passed it will enable local authorities to deal with what is a serious state of affairs without adding to local indebtedness. We find now, especially since the break up of estates, that many people who have bought cottages as a small investment have not got the money to make the necessary improvements. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said district councils are too kind to landlords in not asking them to do repairs which they ought to require them to undertake; but the fact is the councils know very well that the landlords have not got the money. This Bill will provide an instrument whereby the councils can urge landlords to do repairs. They will say to the landlord, "Certain repairs are necessary, and under this Bill you can apply for assistance to carry them out, and if you will not do so we will force you to execute the repairs under other Acts."
As regards the financial side of the Bill, I would like to point out that this is the second Measure we have had before us lately which necessitates expenditure of money by a local authority if that authority is to receive help from the taxpayers. There was a similar provision under the Small Holdings Bill; before the local council could get assistance, it would have to find some part of the money out of the rates. If all counties were equally wealthy, that would be a perfectly reasonable thing, but it is absurd to compare the county from which I come, Norfolk, with counties such as Surrey and Hertfordshire, and to suggest that we are able to put up money as easily as they can. The position is that the more wealthy counties will take far greater advantage of these Bills than counties which are poor. Not very long ago, when a certain amount of assistance was given by the Ministry of Transport in respect of rural roads, the principle was adopted of giving the poorer counties a larger grant than the richer ones. I would appeal to the Minister to see whether it is not possible for him to adopt some such principle in this case, because if Measures like this and the Small Holdings Bill are going to confer more prosperity on the richer counties, we shall get into a vicious circle. The richer counties will get advantages from them and become richer, and the poorer counties will have to stand aside, although they will be subscribing as taxpayers towards the expenditure of the richer counties.
I should have thought it would have been possible for each county to have an index figure to regulate the contributions from the Treasury, based on its rateable value and possibly, also, on the work it has done, in spite of its limitations, in the provision of small holdings and so on. Such index figure should be the basis of all grants from the Treasury, either under a Bill of this sort, or the Small Holdings Bill, or in respect of contributions from the Ministry of Transport towards road expenditure. That would give us ordinary justice, and give the poorer counties the chance of taking advantage of these grants in the same way that the richer counties can.
Perhaps I am prejudiced as a member of a district council—I am a county councillor as well, so I suppose I may be
regarded as more or less neutral—but I am rather sorry to see that the power under this Bill is to be granted almost entirely to the county councils. District councils have done splendid work for housing, and it does seem illogical to say to them: "We will trust you to spend thousands of pounds in building new cottages, but we do not think you are men enough to repair the old ones." I can see that there may be difficulties, but I hope the Minister will be able to overcome them, because the district councils will be rather hurt by this proposed arrangement, and the county councils already have plenty of duties to occupy their staffs. As it is the county councils have to go to the district councils to get advice from their medical officers and their sanitary inspectors, and from the members of the district council themselves who know the local conditions, and, therefore, there is a good case for delegating power freely to the district councils. I would say in conclusion I have not made these criticisms because I do not like the Bill, for I like it very much indeed, and I think it will do a tremendous amount of good, and I hope it will speedily be passed into law.

Mr. FENBY: I wish to congratulate the Minister of Health for doing one thing in this Bill which other Governments are to be condemned for leaving undone. For the first time in our housing legislation, the county authority is to be in some small measure the housing authority. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill said something about the county authority having this power, but did not commit himself to the extent of saying whether the proposal was good or bad. I think he knows as well as I do that the mistakes which have been made and the slow progress with housing in rural areas have been due to a very large extent to the county authority having had no power. In another respect the Minister is taking the same old road — subsidies. It is a subsidy every time when any improvement has to be made. There was a demand from more than one quarter of the House for a subsidy for sugar beet, for a subsidy to the mining industry, and for housing in suburban areas—not only a subsidy for the local authority in suburban areas but also for the individual who wanted to build his house; he could have a handsome subsidy,
even though he had a handsome income. Some hon. Member above the Gangway has said that, as usual, the Government are very anxious to help their friends,, the landlords. I am anxious to help my friends. My friend is the agricultural labourer. It is he, his wife and his family that I have in mind. Why should policemen, roadmen, railway workers, teachers and others employed by the Education Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport occupy houses which are required by agricultural labourers? Why should a policeman, who is paid half his wages by the Home Office and half by the Standing Joint Committee of the county live in a house which is required by an agricultural labourer? Take the school teacher, who is paid under the Burnham scale, why should he live in a cottage which is required by an agricultural labourer? I think pressure ought to he brought to bear upon these various departments of county councils to see that they make proper provision for the policemen, the roadmen, and other sections of their employés. I think that is another reason why there is at the present time a shortage of cottages.
I know that some county authorities have been very anxious to house their own officials, and they have done that without much encouragement from the Government Department. When a person has a few cottages to sell who is generally the best purchaser? Why, the county authority. Who do they purchase them for? Do they purchase them for the agricultural labourer? Nothing of the kind. Generally they put a school teacher in one and a policeman in the other, and consequently in our rural areas we have been going from bad to worse simply because it was left to the rural district council, and they are not the best authority for getting on with housing schemes for agricultural districts. Government Departments have left this question far too much to the local authorities instead of prodding them on to provide houses for the particular public officials who are employed by the authority. Much as I dislike a subsidy either for coal, sugar beet, or anything else, I think this Bill does at any rate go a little way towards providing more and better accommodation for the agricultural worker who sorely needs it. It
does do that. It may be that I am not in agreement with some of my hon. Friends, but in all matters of this kind I take my own action; and if this Bill does anything towards helping the agricultural labourer, I shall support it because I am out to improve if possible rural housing accommodation, and help the agricultural labourer, because it is always best to help the man who has been neglected the longest, and in the rural areas the agricultural labourer has been neglected the longest.
A good deal has been said about the landlords, and if I wanted to enter into a tirade against landlords it would not be difficult to do, although I do not know that it would redound to my credit if I did, because there are different kinds of landlords. Some landlords are good, some are very had, and some are very poor. I am not speaking of the landed proprietors. I know there are many people who do not own a row of houses, but perhaps own two houses, and they live in one and have the other to let. I find in rural areas where the landed proprietor owns the cottages they are often falling into disrepair, but I also know that in some of our villages where there are a large number of freeholders and individual holders who own perhaps one or two houses there you have as much falling into disrepair as you have in the ease of the landlords. I say there should be the same equity of treatment in the case of the poor landlord and the small owner as there is in the case of the man who owns perhaps 20 houses. There are some proposals in this Bill which I dislike and disagree with, but when the Measure conies before the Committee, if I happen to he a member of the Committee, I shall endeavour to improve this Measure by moving Amendments. On the general principle, from the human point of view in rural areas, I shall support anything that will help to provide better accommodation.
I want to ask the Minister one question. He is going to use public money, and he says in one clause that if the houses are in a narrow street there will be prohibition with regard to the operation of this Bill, and that it will be no use asking the Minister of Health for money to improve cottages in a narrow street. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that possibly the highway authority of
the county council may say, "We want to widen this road, and we will pull these cottages down. We shall have to purchase them"? Is that the reason why the Bill is not intended to encourage improvement in narrow streets?
I would also like to put another question to the Minister. I may not have correctly interpreted what was in the mind of the framers of this Bill, and it may he that instead of a grant there will be a loan, but that is immaterial for my argument. Suppose in the next 10 or 15 years it becomes necessary for road improvements under the grant of the Ministry of Transport to pull down a cottage that has been put into a good state of repair out of the money provided under this Bill. In that case are you going to make the person owning the cottage and selling it for road improvement purposes to pay back the amount of money paid to the owner for putting the cottage into tenantable repair? If some provision of this sort is not made, then you are hardly doing justice. I wonder whether the Minister of Health has had in mind putting something in this Bill whereby the evils of the tied cottage can be in any way reduced. The evil I speak of is where a certain cottage goes with the farm, and under the Act of Parliament there is a Clause which says that if the cottage goes with the farm, and if the agricultural labourer leaves his employment, he can by a certain practice adopted by the county agricultural executive committee be turned out because his cottage is required for another labourer. A man may only have two cottages, and he rents them to a farmer because he thinks he is sure of the rent, and then the farmer rents them to two labourers who work for him. That is the evil of the tied cottage system, and in this case, where there is a scarcity of cottages, the farmer is not the owner and they do not go with the farm; but immediately the agricultural labourer who is the tenant under an independent owner has to leave the village, there is not another cottage provided for him and his family.

Major PRICE: He cannot be ejected under the Rent Restriction Act.

Mr. FENBY: I am not so sure about that. It all depends upon the Courts,
and Parliament has no control over the Courts. It also depends on the particular outlook of the bench at a particular time in regard to a particular case. That is how it works out in practice. I see the name of the Minister of Agriculture is on the back of this Bill as well as the name of the Minister of Health. I would like both those Ministers to have looked completely round the whole rural situation from the point of view of housing instead of bringing in a Measure to deal with these little improvements which I welcome. I am very disappointed that the present Government, with its powerful majority, has not taken a much broader outlook with regard to the rural problem. I think we have a good deal of ground for complaint in regard to 'the treatment of rural areas, and the Government have been lacking very much in their vision and action with regard to dealing with the whole of the problem, and doing something to put on a much wider plan a scheme likely to do a great deal more good. Nevertheless I welcome this Bill, small as it is, although I do not think it will do very much to repair the mistakes of the past. I think this Government will go down to posterity as having neglected the agricultural problem at a time when they had an ample opportunity of doing something which would have been a credit to this country.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Although on general political questions I differ as widely as the poles are asunder from the hon. Member who has just spoken, I find myself not for the first nor second time in agreement with a great deal of what he has said on rural matters and particularly with the views he has expressed on the effects on our village life of this Bill. As to his complaint about the delay in bringing it in, I think he ought rather to welcome its being produced so late in the Session, because it will enable him as well as us to devote the whole of our vacation to its consideration. I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on bringing in this Measure, which, in my view, and I have had a considerable number of years' experience of rural affairs, will do more to bring comfort and health to the working population of our rural districts than any Measure that has been introduced into this House for many years. I am very glad to be able thus to congratulate
my right hon. Friend, because I have not always seen eye to eye with him on matters affecting our rural legislation. I am glad, however, to see that he has benefited from the views that have been expressed by myself and others of us on these matters, and has learned successfully the fact that the needs of our rural districts are not necessarily the same, or capable of being dealt with in the same way, as those of more thickly populated municipal areas.
I was very disappointed at the speeches of the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and of the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of this Bill. I take exception to Members from towns trying to force town views on rural areas. In my view, the country districts have been ruled and governed by the townsmen in this House for 50 years past. I had hoped, seeing the large number of Members of the Labour party who are presumably interested in the conditions under which weekly wage-earners live, that they might have seen with us that the needs of the country worker are as great as those of the town worker. What is their objection to this Bill It is that it is a subsidy. But how much subsidy have the constituents of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. H. Hudson), who seconded the rejection of this Bill, had out of the. Government How much have they had out of the rates in subsidies granted to houses built under the Housing Acts in their borough? How much have the town dwellers who are represented by Labour Members in this House had in subsidies under the Housing Acts? I say nothing of the subsidy given to the coal industry, which is a totally different matter, but how much have they had to help them to get their houses provided, mainly under the B brought in by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health? What is the condition of the housing question today? Thanks to the Measures that have been passed, and mainly to my right hon. Friend's Measure, the housing question in our towns is nearly settled. 180,000 houses have been built within the last year, mainly under the Act of 1923. and some under the Act of 1924.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Come down to my constituency.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I said mainly. I agree that it is not completely finished,
but it is well on the way. I should like to ask the Minister what is the amount of the subsidy that has been granted to townsmen under these Measures—a subsidy towards which we who live in country districts have had to pay our share for the benefit of those who live in the towns? What is the second objection of hon. Members opposite? It is that they would rather have new houses built. So would we all, but did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) provide the means for building new houses? He did not. He failed in his great generosity at the public expense. Even under the generous subsidy given under the Act of 1924—which I have heard for the first time amounted in capital value to £300—houses cannot be built in the purely rural districts without putting a heavy charge on the ratepayers. In those areas the rateable value is too small to bear these charges, and, therefore, they cannot proceed to build houses under either scheme.
I remember that after the Act of 1924 was passed I called a meeting of all the housing authorities in my district. It was attended by representatives of eight housing authorities, and we discussed the various methods of pushing forward the building of houses under either Act. We got one or two built, but on the whole we failed, and the housing question to-day in our rural districts is in such a condition that new houses cannot be built. We are left, as the Minister has told us, with, in many cases, a proper number of houses, or a sufficient number of houses; but they are houses which are not in an up-to-date condition, and are not such as our people ought to live in. If we cannot get new houses built, what is the next best thing to do? It is what the Minister is doing, namely, to provide the means for improving these houses and bringing them up to the necessary standard of comfort, health and sanitation for our people.
Who are the people who are opposing that? They are the Labour party, who boast that they are the friends of our working population. I shall take great care that the hon. Gentleman's speech in opposition to this Bill is read on every platform that I attend in my district. What is the cause of the present condition of housing in our rural districts? I am an old hand in
politics, with a number of years' service, and I can remember the time when it was a fashionable and regular thing for the Liberal party to come into our rural districts and, with cheap gibes at the squire and the parson, hold them up to the scorn of the electors. That is now old-fashioned, but it had this effect, that while, in those districts where the rural land was in the hands of one or two big landowners, they, in spite of these attacks, did their duty and provided cottages, in other districts, where there were smaller and more numerous landowners, men were not going, as they had done in the past, to invest their money at a return of 2 or 2 ½ per cent. and be held up to obloquy and scorn by any tub-thumping politician who happened to come into the district. The result was that the houses were not built.
Then, on the top of that, we had the land legislation of the party below the Gangway opposite, which stopped house-building neck and crop. The shortage of houses was not due to the War; it had begun four years before the War. It was accentuated by the War, but the stoppage of house-building by people who were content with a low rate of interest led to this result—it is frequent in my Division, and we are feeling the ills of it now—that such houses as were built were -built by speculators, and we have the spectacle of agricultural workers whose wages are 25s., 26s., 28s. or 30s., paying Os. or 10s. a week for these old houses that were built 20 years ago. Then, on the top of all that, we had the excessive and unfair Death Duties—unfair, not necessarily because of the rates, but because of the way in which properties are assessed. They have driven many landowners to sell their estates, and their successors have not been too strong financially. The result has been that many houses have got into weak hands. The older estates have been impoverished, and the houses have suffered, and have got into such a condition that they are not up to date and are not sanitarily sound or such as we know they ought to be.
We who represent rural constituencies are only too anxious that they should be brought up to date. If the old owners who had the money and could do it have gone, if the modern persons who are in possession cannot do it, if the local
authorities cannot do it, even under the generous Act passed at the public expense by the party opposite, and if, under what I call the more economical and sensible Act of our own Government of 1923, it cannot be dune, is the agricultural labourer, or the worker—as I would rather call him, because it applies to all classes, agricultural labourers and others—to remain, because the Labour party will vote against this Bill and have no other substitute, in these old houses, without an effort on the part of this House to put him in a better position? That is what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says is the right course to adopt.
6.0 P.M.
This Bill enables the houses to be put into a sanitary condition and brought up to a standard that is not fixed by the landowner or the landlord, because it has to be approved by the housing authority. It has to pass the housing authority, it has to pass the medical officer of health, and, even then, as I read the Bill, there is no power to compel the local authority to grant a subsidy—the local authority has a discretion. What becomes, then, of the suggestion that was made, I think, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield? He says that slums in villages will be perpetuated. I do not know what he means; I have not Been a village slum. I admit that individual houses in many parts of the country ought to be altered, and we want to alter them, but there is not the slightest ground for any such fear. The housing authority has absolute discretion before granting this money. Then, says the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill, and also the hon. Member who seconded, this subsidy is going into the landowner's pocket. Has the subsidy granted to townsmen gone into the landowner's pocket? Has it not gone into the occupier's pocket, by reason of the fact that he has a good house at a reasonable rent, owing to the subsidy, such as he other wise would not have had? What is the difference in principle between a subsidy on a new house and a subsidy on an amended house? Do hon. Members suggest that the subsidy in the case of the new house has not gone to the occupier of the new house, but to the people who built the house or to the landlord? If not, where does their argument lead them, and how are we to
accept the arguments they use to-day when they say that the subsidy given to a house which is not to be built from its foundations, but which is going to be amended under this Bill, is going to the landowner and not to the occupier? Under this Measure the tenants are limited to rural workers. The amount of money to be expended is divided into thirds. The owner has to spend at least a third, and he cannot get more than 3 per cent. on it. Where is he getting any of the subsidy money, The House has to be let and occupied for 20 years at least, which is practically a generation, and will be occupied, whenever it is let, by a person of the class for whom we are to-day legislating, that is our rural working population. The opposition to this Measure is short-sighted and foolish and is not based on any solid foundation at all, and, when you remember that it is opposed by persons who have given a bigger subsidy towards housing than any since Dr. Addison's day, I fail to understand the reason for it.
May I make one observation on the Bill? It may be that the Minister has good reasons for appointing the county council as the housing authority instead of the rural district council, but he has not explained them to my satisfaction. I am sorry the Minister is not here, because it rather affects the Poor Law Measure he is bringing in. I myself, who am very keenly interested in rural government, believe the most effective and popular engine of local government in our rural districts is the rural district council. It is an area that is known to the people. If you get a county council extending over an immense area, one part of the county is not known to the others, and the local people themselves cannot take part in their local government because the distance they have to go makes it absolutely prohibitive to a person small means. I believe the rural district council is the best fitted by its knowledge of local needs. Its members can get over the locality. If houses are to be reconditioned and become available under the Act, they will he known to everyone without any trouble. So far as I have seen the work of rural district councils under the Housing Acts, it has been done extremely well, and I think it is a pity to extend it to the county
councils. Their time is fully occupied. In my own county we have great difficulty in getting members to become county councillors, because the work is too heavy, and the demands on their time too great. If rural district councils have done their work in the matter of houses well in the past all over the country, and I think they have, it seems a pity to take away from them, when we have entrusted them with the building of new houses and the expenditure of very much larger sums, the minor duty of repairing the old houses.

Mr. BARR: I do not wish to follow the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) further than to refer to the oft-repeated statement that the stoppage in housing was due to the Finance Act of 1909–10. I was for three years a member of the Royal Commission on Housing, which was composed not at all of those holding the views we entertain on this side, but more largely of Liberals and Conservatives, and the Majority Report states that they considered the whole question and came to the conclusion that many years before the War there had been a stoppage in the supply of houses on the private enterprise principle. They examined very fully this question of how it was affected by the Finance Act of 1909–10. I should like to repeat a sentence:
We are unable to agree with the suggestion that there is any evidence to show that the difficulty of finding capital for housebuilding has been to an appreciable extent brought about by the Finance Act.
It is well worth quoting that, because the tale has been repeated so often that some people have come to believe it.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Which year was that?

Mr. BARR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should know that the Commission reported in 1917, so that they had the whole facts before them and during the whole period right up to the War.
I come now to consider—because this Bill applies with modifications to Scotland—the position of rural housing in Scotland, and I think we may admit that it is in a deplorable condition, perhaps more so even than rural housing in England. I would sum up what is to be said, and what is said, in the Royal Commission's Report regarding the condition of housing so far as it relates to
conveniences in these rural houses, the houses of the ploughmen and the like. They say:
In the rural cottage there are seldom to be found any of the conveniences that are necessary for the ordinary carrying on of family life, such as water supply, scullery, wash-house, coal shed, bath, or water-closet.
We have the evidence of farmers—of M'Connachie—saying it is a very rare thing that there is any water supply in any of these houses. We have the evidence of men like Dr. Huskie, in regard to the rural area with which he is so familiar, in Dumfriesshire, in which he says the condition of things is scandalous in regard to the lack of lavatory accommodation of any kind We have a farmer like James Esselmont, who, when it was put to him what was the provision for sanitary convenience said, there is none—absolutely none—and we have a farm servant, George Ramage, a ploughman, who was asked "Do you know of any case where proper sanitary appliances are put in ploughmen's houses? " and he answered "No"; no case in all the countryside."

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: Is the hon. Member aware that the local authorities can compel the provision of the conveniences he has mentioned?

Mr. BARR: I think I can refute the hon. Gentleman by this fact that one of the recommendations of the Scottish Conference on Agriculture which met not long ago was that the houses to be provided should be of three rooms and that they should be provided with a bathroom except where the local authorities ordained otherwise. That, I think, is a complete answer to what the hon. Gentleman has brought before us.

Sir A. SPROT: No,

Mr. BARR: The hon. Gentleman can give his answer on the Floor of the House afterwards. My object in stating the present position is that I may face the question how far it can be remedied by mere reconstruction and mere repair. It is pointed out in many reports that many of these houses in Scotland were built before there was any provision for damp courses and that that, of course, would need to be provided, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
That just shows one of the great difficulties. I may here quote from the Report the evidence of Mr. James Middleton, a factor on the Kilmarnock Estate, whose whole interest would be to repair and reconstruct the houses if it were possible to do so. This is what he said in answer to a suggestion that the problem might be met by reconstruction and repair:
A great many are in this condition: You would require to pull them down and renew them, but to patch them up, it would not be worth while.
The right hon. Gentleman said it would be quite good if we could get equally satisfactory houses. In Scotland by this method, whatever it may accomplish—I am not decrying the effort; I take it for what it is worth—you are not going to solve the problem or get an equally satisfactory house. The Minister of Health desired that some of these houses should be preserved as a kind of antiquarian illustration of the architecture typical of old England to remind us "of an older and more picturesque world." I also would be willing that a few of them should be preserved as ancient monuments of what the peasantry of Scotland have had to endure through the generations.
My next objection, and my next difficulty with this Measure is that I am very doubtful that it will be effective even for the limited purpose it has in view. It has been admitted that the efforts made in the past have in many ways been disappointing. Power was given to make a special grant to crofters where their buildings were not equal to those of the general scheme, and sums of £80 up to £130 were given. The result was that only 96 houses were built under that scheme. In the Housing and Town Planning Scheme of 1919 the liability of the local authority was limited to four-fifths of a penny, and that was exceedingly favourable to the local authorities. This is what the Report of the Scottish Board of Health for 1925 says:
For some reason or other, it was not taken advantage of to any great extent by the local authorities in the rural areas.
The explanation given here is that there was in their minds an idea that reconstruction and repair might meet the case, but that there was no grant possible, but only a loan and yet, notwithstanding the loan, this is what they report:
It is not thought that this latter power (of loan) has been put into operation to any extent.
Further, under the Acts of 1919 and 1923, it was possible to take advantage of the lump sum which could be given to private builders. With what result? The Report says:
There is no information to show to what extent these subsidies have been used for the purpose of providing houses for farm servants.
That really means that it was not taken advantage of at all. It is a euphemistic way of saying nothing was done. In the Act of 1924, because the building of new houses in rural districts was more expensive than in towns in many cases, the grants were raised to £9 in towns and to £12 10s. in country districts, but even this additional sum has not induced local authorities to come forward in this matter of housing. Therefore, we have a statement in the Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health that, of 453 houses completed, and of 4,640 under construction, only four of the completed houses were in rural areas, and only 78 under construction were in rural areas. I fear that this Measure, which has no compelling power behind it, is not likely to be more effective than the others. It does nothing to get at the root causes of the evil. There has been a great dereliction of duty on the part, of landlords in regard to ploughmen's houses. I am not saying that on my own accord. Dr. Dawson, the medical officer for Galloway-Kirkcudbright and Wigton-shire, said:
The cot houses are about the last thing that are attended to by some proprietors.
It is the duty of the proprietor to take, or, at any rate, he is supposed to take, a paternal interest in his estates, and to see the condition of the houses. would draw attention to an answer given by a ploughman, George Ramage, before the Commission. He was asked:
Do you find that on those estates that you have been on, the factor or the landlord goes round occasionally and asks you what repairs you would like to have done?
His reply was:
No. That is a thing we have never heard of.
The landlord is an absentee in these districts; he has abrogated the very functions on which his existence is attempted to be justified.

Major PRICE: Does not the Report give credit to some landlords?

Mr. BARR: I am going to pay my tribute to the other landlords. I am not going to take an undue advantage. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will note that I shall pay tribute to a certain type of landlord. I would, however, refer to a leading article in the "Times" of this morning, which says:
it is a melancholy thing that old families have had to part with their heirlooms in order to provide for the payment of Death Duties, and to keep the houses of the agricultural workers in order.
I am bound to say, as far as Scotland is concerned, they may have paid their Death Duties, but they have certainly not kept the houses of the agricultural workers in order. This Measure does nothing to meet the question of dual responsibility. That is the great difficulty in Scotland. The landlord does the reconstruction, or he is responsible for it, while the farmer is responsible for the repair and. upkeep. The agricultural labourer suffers between them, and does not know where to turn. I think I have mentioned in a former discussion that, when a farmer is looking for a farm which is in the market and there is keen competition, he has to satisfy himself—we are not blaming him, because he has to pay the rent—that the steading is sufficient. Lora Lovat, Milne Home, and other land-owners and farmers have testified that when they had done that, they did not like to raise too many questions or to speak about the cottage of the farm worker.
I can quote from a statement by the county sanitary inspector of Kirkcudbright, who says:
I could take you to farms where hundreds of pounds have been spent on the steading and not one penny on the cottages.
That dual system still obtains. In a Measure of this kind, under which grants are to be given by the county council and by the Government, it was surely a suitable occasion to deal with this matter by public control, and not to have the cottages tied, as they are, to a particular farm. They should be put under the county council, and the man should be given his independence. We know that in Ireland, under the Irish Labourers Acts, that has been done. Up to March,
1915, over 45,000 of these cottages had been planted. The Government provided a subsidy of 36 per cent. of the cost, while the loans amounted to £8,907,000. By the testimony of those who gave evidence before the Royal Commission, the labourer, by no longer being in a tied house, was in a position of much greater freedom and much better economic status.
What are the Government doing to induce the county councils to lay down conditions so that in return for these grants and subsidies there will be some real control over the property? When the Royal Commission examined this question, they said that if such subsidies were given there should be some Department that would exercise continual supervision over these peasants' houses, that would take the value from time to time, that would see that the value was not depressed below the sum that had been advanced, and, if need be, would take them over for the Government itself in certain cases. The hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) has raised the question of the provision of baths and other sanitary conveniences. In Clause 1, we find that all that is said is that the scheme may prescribe for the provision of water supply or sanitary conveniences. The county councils in Scotland as at present constituted argue that there is no need to supply baths, because they are not appreciated. One farm servant, Mr. James Rothney, who, think, became the general secretary of the Farm Labourers' Union, dealt with this point before the Royal Commission, and indulged in some pleasantry. He said:
There are some who cannot appreciate it, because they do not know what it means. They have not had a bath so long as they remember, and they look upon it as something that is likely to be a source of trouble.
On the other hand, we had it from the covenor of the county of Dumfries and from the sanitary inspector for Kircudbright, that not only were baths appreciated, but that they were well kept. That applies to whole houses and not to baths only. If you give a Scotsman something that is worth keeping, he will keep it and keep it well. I remember that when we were dealing with this matter in the Royal Commission people said, "Why
give baths to miners? Why give baths to agricultural labourers? They will put coals in the baths." Why does any woman put coals in the bath? Because she has not been provided with a coal cellar. So long as you are not willing to give her a coal cellar, it is a proper form of protest to go on putting coals in the bath.
The, hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) said that all landlords were not to blame. I agree. There was a landlord on the Commission, and he was the most advanced man on the Commission—Sir William Younger, of Auchencastle. I think he was once a Member of this House. He led the Commission on the question of baths, and he put his faith into practice and provided modern up-to-date houses, equipped in every way for his ploughmen. When he found that the farmers were letting these new houses and keeping the ploughmen in the old dilapidated houses, he took steps and insisted upon the new houses being used for the ploughmen. Here was a man of large means, living in a castle in Dumfriesshire, but acting on the truly Christian principle, with the desire, as far as possible, to give to these people the same comforts and conveniences that he himself enjoyed. The agricultural labourer is as much entitled to a bath and a lavatory as the farmer or the landlord.
The question of subsidy was fully dealt with by the Royal Commission. The Association of County Councils and the representatives of the landowners put this question before the Commission. They said, "The crofter has been given a subsidy to build his house, why not give a subsidy to the landlord?" The answer of the Commission was that you give a subsidy to the crofter to build his own house, but to give a subsidy to the landlord would be to give him a subsidy to carry on his business and to make it a revenue-producing subject. These are the words they used, and they sum up the situation in a nutshell:
The assistance would be given from the public funds, at a loss to the public, to enable the proprietor to maintain the equipment of his estate, and so the revenue therefrom. It would he in the nature of a special subsidy to a particular business interest, and would be given to an individual whose inability or unwillingness has created the problem we are dealing with.
I do not depreciate altogether some parts of the Bill, but it seems to me to be lacking in vision and thoroughness. It seems to he setting up a mere patchwork as a solution of the housing problem in Scotland. It is said of a famous Roman Emperor that he found Rome built of bricks and that be left it built of marble. It will be said of this Government, in relation to the urban part of Scotland, that they found Scotland built of stone and, aided by Lord Weir, they left it built of wood and iron, and that in the rural districts, where they found dilapidated houses, they perpetuated the evil system of housing which has too long obtained in those districts.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I think that the majority of the House will join me in congratulating the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. Many of us put it forward in the front of our programmes at the General Election. I am sorry that the Opposition has adopted the line it has, because their opposition seems rather bitter, and not inclined to help. I am glad that Scotland is included in the Measure and is not to be dealt with in a separate Bill, as has always been the case in regard to housing. I hope it will afford some measure of relief to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), who has been so scathing in his criticism, that it was to cover most of the points to which he has referred that this Bill has been brought in. It will deal largely with water supply, drainage, and damp courses in floors. I cannot entirely share his opinion as to the state of the housing of the ploughmen and farm workers in Scotland. In my constituency the shell of the house is of stone and the roof of slate. To replace them with anything new would he impossible within the figure that the subsidy will allow. The only solution in that case is to arrange for the accommodation, water supply and drainage to be brought up to date. An important thing is to get rid of the stone floors with which most of these houses are built.
The Bill will afford an immediate measure of relief to many people in Scotland. It is certainly one which has my warmest support, and I believe it will give intense pleasure to hundreds of people in Scotland. The one thing that cannot be done is to build houses to the extent hon. Members opposite have
indicated. To do that it would be necessary to have the accelerated programme put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and when you have a large number of structures, it is impossible to do anything but recondition them. Reconditioning is a question with which I have been familiar in the Army for many years. It has been carried out in a systematic manner and presents no new features whatever. If it had been possible to carry out reconditioning under civil conditions we should have had no slums to-day. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) said it would be far better to purchase these buildings and then rebuild them entirely. He has not considered what this would cost. Instead of having to go through the very cumbrous process of rebuilding, which is quite unnecessary, any buildings which are fairly good can be brought up to date quite easily. In the case of buildings which are condemned, I would ask hon. Members opposite to consider the time it would take to replace them.
We have heard a good deal about tied houses. In my view, this sort of house is very popular, and the rows of farm cottages are much preferred to isolated cottages, particularly on large and exposed farms, and any movement to break up these buildings would be extremely unpopular. This Bill is very applicable in cases like this, and I hope Clause 2 will cover such work. I am told that it only covers drainage and water supply, but I imagine it will' cover any work which will benefit the whole row of such cottages. There is a wise provision as to the limit of value when finished. I do not think anyone can say that a grant of £100 is unnecessarily large—and the landlord only gets 3 per cent.. for his expenditure. It hardly merits the slurs which have been cast upon it as being a. landlords' improvement Bill. As to the idea that the State should take over these houses because private ownership has failed, I would ask hon. Members opposite to consider whether they are prepared to bring in a Bill to buy up all the rural cottages in Great Britain I That would be necessary in order to carry out their proposal. The provision that the county councils should run this scheme is a wise one, and I hope it will he the precursor of a general co-ordination of effort in counties. You would
get much better engineering and architectural advice in this way than if a small authority was called upon to put this Bill into operation. There is no hardship on county councils or rural district councils, as many estates come into more than one email authority.
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill considered it was sharp practice, as it gave more power to the county councils, but, if a scheme of purchasing was brought in, it would undoubtedly give much more power to county councils than is suggested by this Measure. He also said that this was being done only for the landlords. He does not realise to what extent large estates are being broken up, how numerous are the small holdings, and how impossible it is on the rent to do anything to improve buildings. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Motherwell pay a tribute to Sir William Younger, because I know that estate very well. But his remarks do not apply to one person only. I could give him many other cases in my own constituency. We appreciate what they do, but you will find that such persons are not entirely dependent on the money they get out of their farms; otherwise, it would be impossible for them to improve their cottages. That is where this Bill is useful, and I hope hon. Members opposite will consider this point. I shall be satisfied in explaining the position to my own constituents, and I know what the effect will be among the farm servants. I think we must all congratulate the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I hope, will be able to carry out the provisions of this Measure in Scotland at the same time as they are put into operation in England.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: The great majority of hon. Members of the House will agree with what has just fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. I do not propose to follow him into the details of this Measure, but there are one or two points which I desire to put to the Minister. In Clause 1, Sub-section (2), it will be seen that ordinary repairs are excluded from the Bill, and in Clause 2, that the cost of each one particular operation is not to be less than £50. Let me put these two cases together. There are to be no ordinary repairs within the
scope of the Bill and if any additions or improvements are to come within the Bill, then they are to cost not less than £50.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. and gallant Member will see that the Clause says:
but shall not in any case consist solely of works of ordinary repair and upkeep.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I admit it says "solely," but I understand that ordinary repairs are not to come under this Bill. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will clear this point up. I wish to say this. In the country you very often find a row of six, eight or 10 cottages, purely rural dwellings, which have fallen into a very bad state of repair. Possibly they may belong to a widow, are heavily mortgaged, and to-day these dwellings from an ownership point of view arc worth nothing. The rents barely pay the interest on the mortgage. If this Bill is to be a success and we are to get a larger number of rural dwellings made habitable, surely it is a pity to exclude all costs of repairs in cases of buildings of that kind. Why make a limit of £50? It may be that a cottage for an expenditure of less than £50 might he made quite habitable, and where you have a row of cottages, £300 or 400 might be spent on eight or 10 cottages, which would bring each cottage below the £50 limit. I hope this point will receive some consideration by the Government between now and the Committee stage, because I feel sure that the majority of hon. Members really want this Bill to work. Everybody in fact wants it to work except hon. Members above the Gangway.
There is also a point in Clause 2, which is not quite clear. Who is to decide whether the assistance is to be by grant or loan? Is the local authority to decide, or is the applicant to decide? When I first read the Bill I took the view of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) that the authority which should put this Bill into operation should not be the county council but the rural district council. I felt it would be better it should be the rural authority rather than the county authority, and the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that if you are going to allow the rural district council to undertake the major operation of building,
surely it is rather ridiculous to deny them the privilege of carrying out repairs. That is a strong point, but the arguments put forward by the Minister of Health rather shook my view on this point and I think that on the whole the Bill makes a very fair compromise. The county council is to be the authority under this Measure, but there is a saving clause whereby the duties may be deputed to the rural council, and I think that compromise meets the circumstances of the case as well as can be expected.
What I cannot understand in regard to this Bill is the position of the Labour party. I listened with keen interest to the speech for the rejection of the Bill made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). I waited for the arguments; I only heard gibes. T heard no argument at all. In fact, the hon. Member seemed to be in the greatest possible difficulty in deciding on what grounds to oppose the Bill. First he tried to make out that it was merely making the land safe for the landlord, but then he left that argument and said that the moment at which his Bill had been introduced was the worst possible moment. He complained that it was not brought in last year, the year before, or earlier this Session, and, in fact, he said that he would prefer it was brought in next Session. Whenever we try to help the agricultural labourer, as the Conservative party has always tried to do, whenever we put forward a Measure for this purpose, the Labour party always say it is not a good time to bring it forward. I ask the Socialist party above the Gangway when is the time if now is not the time? I would like to examine one argument put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. He said that this Bill would be a present to the landlords. If it is going to he a present to the landlords, the hon. Member must mean either that it is a present to him in the nature of a capital present, a lump sum, or it is to be a present to him in the nature of an increase of his income. There is no other form which this particular present could take. Let us deal first with the argument that it is a present to the landlord on the capital side. What is the position? We will suppose that a scheme is to be
carried out involving an expenditure of £150 on a particular house.

Mr. DUNCAN: A rotten house!.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: If it were a very good house there would be no need to spend the money. Let us suppose there is a scheme for the expenditure of £150 on the house. The State finds £50, the local authority finds £50, and the landlord finds £50. What is the landlord to get for his expenditure of £50? It may be that in order to find the £50 he will have to sell out securities which now pay him 4 or 5 per cent. He will sell those securities in order to invest the proceeds in the improvement of a particular building. But under the Bill he is limited to 3 per cent. interest. How can it possibly be said, then, that this is a present to the landlord, when what is involved is a sacrifice of 5 per cent. in order to get 3 per cent.? But suppose it is said that the improvement of the building will add largely to its value. The landlord is unable to realise that value. The Bill says that there shall be no alteration for 20 years; he is not able to put the building in the market for 20 years. But if he must sell, it has to be with the consent of the Minister and of the local authority, and after having sold the property he has to pay back to the local authority and the State the whole of the money advanced, plus compound interest.
Again, I ask, where does the present come in? It is a curious thing that for many years past it has always been one of the chief arguments of the Liberal party to attack the landlords. It would appear now that the limbs of the Liberal party have become so attenuated that that particular mantle has fallen from their shoulders on to those of the Labour party. The more Royal Commissions inquire, the more investigations are made into matters connected with the rural life of this country, the more is the fallacy of the wickedness of the landlord exposed in all its nakedness. If the Labour party in opposing this Bill can bring forward no better argument than the slinging of mud out of the gutter, where it was dropped by the Liberal party, there is very little real criticism which can be levelled against the Bill.

Major G. F. DAVIES: When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health introduced this Measure he said that he could only describe the position as comic. That was before he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) from the Front Bench opposite. I do not know which was more striking, the comedy of the atmosphere of the Marble Arch on Saturday afternoons being brought into the House of Commons on a Tuesday, or the tragedy and pathos of the ignorance and prejudice displayed by so many hon. Members opposite when they come to deal with anything in the remotest degree connected with the land and agriculture. Whether it has to do with farming or with rating or with housing, however remotely connected with someone who owns property, at once King Charles's head is trotted out in the form of the wicked landlord, and our ears are wearied with vain repetitions by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose ignorance in these matters is equalled only by their determination to display it. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that we had not touched the fundamental condition. He carefully avoided the real fundamental condition which has to be borne in mind, and that is that housing, the provision of houses for workers in agriculture, has never been on an economic basis.
Those of us who are connected with the agricultural industry have it constantly flung in our teeth that our agricultural workers are grossly underpaid. That we admit; we admit that their pay is low. But it has always been forgotten that the housing accommodation which they get is in the nature of a subsidy on their occupation. An ounce of practical experience is worth a pound of theory. In my own particular case I have cottages which, for repairs, may cost as much as £50 at a time in trying to bring them reasonably near to the standard of to-day. The cottages were built decades ago. I get the magnificent rental of is. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a week for those cottages, and I have to pay for repairs, upkeep and rates. Who is going to be such a fool as to do that under the conditions of to-day?

Mr. DUNCAN: The Labour landlord.

Major DAVIES: It is the. easiest thing in the world to be generous at someone else's expense, but even the Labour land-
lord is unable to be generous with anyone's money now, and that is largely on account of past legislation in the way of taxation imposed upon landlords by avaricious Chancellors of the Exchequer and others. Even from such an unlikely source as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) we received yesterday a tribute as to what the landlord had done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention what he had done himself to make it impossible for landlords to continue their work, but he turned to the landlord and said in effect, "Poor fellow He is no longer able to carry out his responsibilities, so we will take his property away from him, and do the work for him in future." This Bill will help to deal with the situation with which we are immediately faced, and that is that we have to provide housing accommodation for the workers in the scattered rural districts of the country. The housing Measures that have so far been passed have not been such as to induce the putting up of new buildings. Meanwhile the need for houses continues, and this Measure follows the line of least resistence, and shows how we can get improved housing for agricultural and similar workers with the least expenditure of money and in the shortest possible time. For that reason 1 welcome the Measure.
Let me say something on the question of the tied house, which is like a red flag to a bull when presented to hon. Members opposite. The tied cottage system has grown up in the interests very largely of the occupiers—not only of the landlord but of the occupier. What is the use of taking a farm in which you want to get employés, particularly those who look after live-stock, if you have not housing accommodation to give them? It is not only in the interests of the man but also in the interests of the farmer, I admit, but it is a fifty-fifty proposition. If you are dissatisfied with a horse-man and you get rid of him, but he remains in his cottage, and you have nowhere to house his successor, both you and the man concerned are in a difficulty. Let me give an experience of my own. It was the case of a man who had to cycle 3½ miles to look after some stock because I could not get another man out of a cottage. If you are going to attack the whole question of the tied cottage you have to
face the position in which local authorities will have dotted all over the countryside alternative accommodation waiting to house those who want to be near their work. The thing is as fatuous as most things which come from the party opposite, and the reason is that they know nothing whatever of the problem.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish to support the opposition to the Bill. I would congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken on the fact that he is graduating very rapidly for, if he has not already reached, the Hyde Park stage. The probability is that he will be a shining light in the Conservative party, once he gets his vocabulary improved a little, and he seems likely to improve it as a result of this Bill. A number of men and women own land in this country, and in order to get labour they erected hovels instead of houses, and in the course of years these places have got into such a state of disrepair that they are uninhabitable and bad for the health of the people. Instead of improving his housing as he ought to do, the landed proprietor now comes to the House of Commons, and wants the State to undertake what is obviously his duty. The landlords have no shame in asking for a subsidy. I notice that the last speaker went dangerously near to asking for a subsidy for the upkeep of the cattle, in the interest of the cattle. I expect that in a short time it will be said to be in the interests of horses that the State should provide decent cottages. The Labour party is opposed to spending money on property that belongs to someone else. We are in favour of good houses for the rural workers. This Bill provides a way of adding to the value of houses owned by someone else. As a party we are opposed to subsidising the landlord to that extent.
7.0 P.M.
I hope that, Tory Members opposite will pay attention to the fact that they are not the only party in the country who own tied houses. In the industry that I have the honour to represent, the mining industry, the colliery owners have tied houses. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland help the owners to improve their houses? If such a claim is made will Members opposite get up and make speeches against it? Why the landed interests should always be singled out for
benefit I cannot tell. They have nothing they can boast about, except in the odd case of some good landlord. I have never met a good landlord; I have met bad landlords but never a good one. When I do meet a good landlord I will give him credit for being good. I sincerely hope Members of our party will press this matter to a division and let the country know just exactly what is taking place. If a house becomes unhealthy, why should not a public authority do its duty and issue a closing order? All the money we can spend will not make a bad house a good house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know the meaning of the interruption. One of the arguments that we have heard is in regard to getting rid of the stone floor. That means digging. Your walls are not high enough to allow ventilation, and no matter how much money you spend you only make a bad house still a bad house. Compare the position of the agricultural labourer to that of the landed proprietors. The poor house he occupies compared with the house they occupy. He is giving useful service to the State. That is more than most of the landed proprietors in this House can say. I hope the question will be carried to a division and that the House will reject another subsidy to landed proprietors.

Mr. RYE: The House will agree that one thing that has emerged in this Debate is that the agricultural worker is not properly housed. That is agreed on all sides. We had a picture of the miserable condition of the agricultural worker painted by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), and then we heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) reading an extract from a report of the Medical Officer of the County of Essex, and I should have thought that that report, coupled with the statements made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, was the strongest possible reason why we should support this Bill. It is not disputed that the agricultural workers are badly housed. It is not disputed that this Bill, if placed upon the Statute Book, will, to some extent, assist those workers by improving their habitation. I should have thought no single Member on the Opposition benches would have been prepared to raise his voice against this proposal.
The country is told every day that the Labour party are the friends, and the only friends, of the working classes, and yet, when the Government come forward with a proposal which will to an extent—possibly not to so large an extent as some of us would like—alleviate the unfortunate position of the agricultural workers so far as their houses are concerned, Member after Member on the Opposition benches is prepared to get up and say that they are not willing to support this Measure. If that be a token of friendship, I should imagine the agricultural workers throughout the country will say of the Members of the Opposition, " Heaven help us from our friends." In my mind, there are overwhelming reasons for placing the Bill on the Statute Book. Apart from the question of providing better accommodation, there is the other point, which was eloquently referred to by the Minister in introducing the Bill, namely, the necessity of retaining our old cottages and old buildings that make so much for the beauty of our rural country. After all, that has to he considered. We are all very proud of our country. There is this further consideration to be remembered. The fact that we have those beautiful cottages in charming surroundings brings a great number of visitors to this country. I should hope, if only on that ground, that the Bill will be placed on the Statute Book, so that many delightful old cottages, charming to the eye, may be preserved and retained for many years to come.
I am going to refer in particular to Clause 2 of the Bill, where, as hon. Members will observe, assistance cannot be given if the value of the house, on the completion of the work, exceeds £400. As I read the Bill, it is framed with the object of assisting owners of separate dwellings, but hon. Members are aware there are a good many cases in the country where an old house has fallen from its high estate and been converted into tenements for a number of families. I can call to mind one in a village in Hampshire, occupied by five or six families, where the value is over £400. The owner of that particular building will be barred from receiving any grant or loan under this Bill. I know there is a proviso to the effect that, where the proposed works will constitute improvements to two or more dwellings by way of the
provision of water supply, drainage, or other works for the joint benefit of the dwellings, assistance may be given if the estimated total cost of the works is not less than £100. It must be clear that in a case where there is a large house converted into tenements and occupied as a number of dwellings, the building of any addition to one part of the house could not be regarded as other works for the joint benefit of the dwellings. I hope that when this Bill comes to the Committee stage the Clause will he amended so as to cover the class of building to which I have referred.
As regards the restriction of the cost of work to not less than £50, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise). I do not know why there should be this restriction. The aim and object of this Bill is to provide better and additional accommodation, and, if you can provide that by an expenditure of £25, I do not know why the owner should not be at liberty to go to the local authority and ask for assistance by way of grant or loan. Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 provides:
The local authority may in any case refuse to give assistance under this Act on any grounds which seem to them sufficient, and in particular on the ground that the house or building in respect of which the works are to be executed cannot, by reason of the narrowness, closeness, or bad arrangement of the streets or buildings in the immediate neighbourhood thereof, be converted into a satisfactory dwelling or dwellings.
I hope that Clause will be amplified so as to make it obligatory on the local authority to see that whatever alteration is made to a building it will not prejudice the amenities of the district. All over the country beautiful places have been ruined by the erection of buildings quite out of character with the buildings in the district. For example, in a stone county, you will see hideous red brick buildings put up with ghastly tiled roofs. I hope the local authority will be able to take that into consideration and see that nothing will be allowed which will prejudice the countryside. I think that is important.
Then there is the question of default being made by anyone who has received a grant. It is provided that thereupon the amount due shall become a charge upon the property. I do not know whether the draftsmen in
drawing up this Bill considered the position of a mortgage on a particular property. This Clause will at once convert a first mortgage into a second mortgage. It may be said that that is not very material, but it is material when you have trustees lending on a mortgage, because they are not entitled to lend on second mortgage. The result of this Clause will be that the trustees will hesitate in the future to lend on this class of property. I hope that will he taken into consideration when the Bill is dealt with in Committee. I would like to ask whether leasehold, as well as freehold property, is to be the subject of a loan. There is nothing in the Bill to say that leasehold is included. Again, who is to pay the cost of the valuations and of the proposed mortgages which may or may not mature? Is that to fall upon the local authority or upon the owner? I suggest that the usual course should be adopted, and those who borrow should pay the fees for the accommodation they require. That seems to be reasonable.
I would like to refer, in conclusion, to the question of the authority who will have the carrying out of this Bill. Some Members have suggested that it should be the local councils, and others have agreed with the Minister that the county council is the appropriate authority. I consider that the county councils should not have the power delegated to them at all. The county councils have already sufficient work to do. Members of the House will remember that the Minister has on more than one occasion referred to his proposals of Poor Law reform, and I believe I am right to saying he has in view the handing over of the powers of the guardians in the main to the county councils. The county councils will, therefore, have upon their shoulders additional work. I do not think they are the proper authority to decide these questions. For this reason, 1 trust that the local council and not the county council will have the right to carry through the administration of this Bill. In conclusion, I want to say that, in my opinion, it is a good Bill; it is a Bill that is overdue; and I hope it will be accepted by the majority of this House, and be placed on the Statute Book.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: There are two things that are peculiarly piteous to those who have the practical
dealing with the housing difficulties locally and on the spot. The first one is when the obvious needs of housing are made a cockpit of politics and are opposed, not on reasons of housing, but for reasons of political theory pure and simple. That is the state of the opposition this afternoon. The second thing is when one sees the old long-tried remedy repeated in different forms, again and again brought into this House and put into legislation, with the same kind of ideas and ideals behind them, and consigned to the same pigeonholes, again to be perfectly useless and worthless in actual practice. I want to follow those two remarks out from the point of view of an old and tried county medical officer of health. With regard to the need of this repair of housing, it is obvious on paper that it would be infinitely better to sweep away old and bad housing and rely upon new housing. We have tried that for the past seven years. We have tried it for years before the War, and since -the War, and what has been the result? A few thousand houses for the country, but yet it is not touching the real problem especially the need of the labourer. We know that the people depend upon houses in which they are to live. They cannot possibly wait until you have got the extra new houses and can close the existing houses. I know this idea of repairs of houses is not a new one. I know the idea of compulsory repair is not a new one. Under the scheme which was initiated after the War, a Memorandum was sent round by the Ministry of Health regarding unfit houses, in which this matter is dealt with, and that Memorandum stated that if the owner does not comply with the requirements and did not give notice declaring the houses to be closed as unfit for habitation, the local authority
may themselves do the work and recover the expenses from him.
It was also provided that
Any expenses incurred by the local authority may he recovered from the owner, together with interest at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent.
So it was all the way through. It was a case of closing orders or repairs and power was given to the local authorities right and left to inspect property and to require the owners, wherever the houses were bad, to have the repairs done. There has been no lack of effort to carry
out these duties and cases have been reported to the authorities again and again. It has been the one constant endeavour of medical officers of health especially under the 1909 Act, to pull together the work of all the district officers throughout the county, to summarise their reports, to bring the results before the county council and to work hard in co-operation with the district authorities in order to see that action was taken, where they could not bring in the county council itself to use its own powers or else take more drastic steps.
What has been the result of all this procedure? The result officially is very slight, but in actual practice, I would not say that it has been so very slight. This procedure has meant all kinds of pressure being applied and has resulted in education of a most valuable kind. In one way or another it has succeeded in "geting a move on," but as regards this procedure being officially effective there has been more than a little doubt. The question will be asked, "How can we get these things done, and why have they not been done?" It is for the very reasons which were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in his speech when he was explaining why he chose the county council rather than the district council as the authority, generally speaking, to carry out this Measure. The district council is too close down to the man who is to be coerced to be able to use powers of coercion properly. In the country we do not live in a state of constant warfare. We know that we have to live and let live and we work together, and in the district areas we try to get the landlord, the farmer and the labourer to co-operate, and the district council is not going to exercise any coercive pressure if they can help it. You are too close to the actual point of attack to be able to achieve the desired effect.
If you take the larger area, the county area, I think you will be able—I hope you will be able—to act more effectively. Whatever power you give to a district council which is in any way coercive or punitive will be futile. That has been proved to be so all through the history of housing, and it will continue to be so in the future except in one or two rare districts where you have men of outstanding character who can carry such
things through by the force of their own personalities. You must give such powers to the larger authority, and I am doubtful if even the larger authorities, supposing it to be composed entirely of members of the Labour party, will get much advance merely by corecion. That is not the way to get improved houses. Coercion does not do ft. We have to look at the economic facts of the case, and the chief reason why it has always been so difficult to deal with this question is that-people have refused to recognise the real difficulties of the case. You are up against one obstacle in the political controversy about the landlords, because you have one party concentrating all its attention on the bad landlord, and another party concentrating all its attention on the good landlord. The proper way of regarding these difficulties of the countryside is to recognise that the owners are not land "lords" but are the stewards, trustees or managers of the property. If you had nationalisation, you would require managers, and where would you get managers better suited to the land and to the countryside, and better qualified to run these estates, than the men who come into them naturally, and who love them, and who love the countryside? Would you get managers to run these estates any cheaper than the men who run them now? They do so very largely out of their own pockets or out of pockets filled from other sources—very often from loans and so forth which cannot immediately be met. I believe that is the cheapest way of running them, but like many a cheap thing it does not give altogether satisfactory results.
I had hoped that the Opposition would put forward some constructive proposals calculated to lead to more effective results. I thought they were bound to do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) made what I think was the worst speech I have ever heard from him. I do not often hear him make bad speeches, but to-day he did not face the difficulties of the case, and merely proposed, vaguely, a national taking-over of these houses in order to put them into repair. I gather he does not propose any compensation. A forcible confiscation of property would be bad enough in itself, although I do not think many landlords would mind being dispossessed of their cottages, if the State undertook to provide cottages
for their labourers. But the hon. Member did not suggest any way in which this was to be done, nor did the Labour party when they sat on this side of the House propose to deal with this question. They did not touch the question of repairs. They did not even mention it. Why? Because they bad their hands full merely trying to get more houses built. I am perfectly certain it would be impossible for the State to take over the question of these bad houses in order to put them into repair, deal with them and manage them. We must at the present moment deal with the situation as it is. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that more attention might be directed to the district authorities and to the possibility of their carrying out some provisions which have been to a large extent dead letters in the past.
A real difficulty exists in regard to houses which are owned by small people who have bought them as speculations. In one of the country villages which know, some of the worst property was bought by a chemist in North London, and by degrees he sold off one or two houses to people—but not to people in the village. Nobody in the village would touch them, because they knew it was not a business proposition. The houses were past praying for. Some were bought by a man from Islington, and they are all owned by small people who have invested their savings in this way and who know they can make both ends meet by not carrying out the repairs which are required. Those are cases in which, I think, pressure ought to be brought to hear. I think, generally speaking, a good deal wore could be done to induce the district councils and the local sanitary authorities to exercise the powers which they possess. Notices should be sent round—as was done in 1919 and on several occasions since to the county councils—not simply printed notices, but suggestions that they should make more use of their power of reporting any default of the district councils, and, where necessary, of taking action.
On the question of whether the county council or the district council should be the authority in this case, I wish to say that I can conceive only one way in which the county council can properly manage public health affairs and that is by the firmest co-operation between the
two bodies. I am certain that the district council is, in many cases, quite unequal to the responsibilities which a much higher standard of public health wishes to impose upon them, and it is there that the county council must come in. But it is quite clear, from other points of view, that the people who are close to the actual conditions know most and see most and have before them the requirements of the situation. You have this difficulty in the way of combining the two authorities, that you must give responsibility to the one or to the other. The responsibility in housing is generally given to the district authority, with power to the county council, in certain circumstances, to take over those powers from the district council. In this Bill the proposal is the other way round. The authority is given, in the first instance, to the county council, but they have power to devolve it, in certain eases, to the district council. I think that is probably the right line as between the two, but I hope the Minister will be very lenient in those cases where the county council wishes the district council to carry out the working part of the scheme as distinct from the punitive or drastic part—where the county council really wishes to "get a move on" by enabling the district council to carry out schemes in contact with their housing policy. I think in many cases it will be found that the district councils are able to carry out the work, but, generally, and on the whole, I think the authority should be given primarily to the county council and that they should have the power to draw back to themselves any authority that has been delegated to the district councils.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: The impression left in my mind after listening to practically the whole of the Debate is that hon. Members opposite have come to the conclusion that they have got hold of a political "good thing." The agricultural labourer, however, is not so simple as some of them imagine, and he knows perfectly well the difference between legislation which is aimed primarily at helping him and legislation which is aimed primarily at applying public funds for private ends. There are two classes of landlords to be dealt with when we deal with this problem—about the existence of which there is no division of
opinion at all. The division of opinion is, first, as to the principle upon which it should be approached and, secondly, as to the method that should be adopted. There are, as I say, two classes of landlords. There is what may be termed the rich landlord who, in 99 cases out of 100, does not derive his income from his land but from business of one kind or another, or at any rate from sources outside his land and estates. That is the type of landlord who, as a matter of fact, has landed estate in order to spend money and not to make money. One very conspicuous example was quoted this afternoon. A good many of these are excellent landlords. Unlike an hon. Member who spoke from behind me. I have met good landlords. They are not the old type of landlords but, so far as money can do it, they do their duty by their estate. But a great many others of them are not good landlords, and on the estates of many of these landlords there are cottages which ought not to exist at all.
So far as that section of the problem is concerned it ought to be drastically dealt with by the coercive power which the local authorities now have and to which the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) has referred. They cannot close those cottages, but repair them. They can repair them in a way that will be satisfactory to them, and then charge the landlord with the expense, either putting in a bill or taking his rents. Then there is another section, and that is the one that this House is being asked to consider now. It is the case of a landlord who has either very little income or no income at all, except what he gets from his estate. That case was put, if I might say so, very fairly, by the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir It. Sanders). It is the case of a landlord who would like to provide better cottages for his labourers, but who cannot do it because he has not got the capital. This Bill proposes to step in and do what that landlord, as the custodian of his estate, ought to do. Whenever we raise a question regarding British agriculture the plea is always put up—and I am sorry to say very often with too much justification—that the landlord, the English and Scottish landlord, in the 20th century, unless he owns minerals
or something like that, the purely agricultural landlord, in the 20th century, has not the capital that he used to have in the 19th century; consequently his estate has become more and more derelict. If the State is going to step in and help him, as this Bill proposes, to provide cottages, why not help him to provide improvements, drainage, and so on? As a matter of fact, it has been done to a certain extent, but it is a very bad principle I am going to argue that it is a very bad principle to help him to supply his estate capital, because that is what it is. If hon. Members belonged, say, to a Stock Exchange company, which, in the due efflux of time, became a derelict community, and they were to come to ask capital from the State to enable them to keep going, they would be in exactly the same position as the landlord is in at the present time.

Major PRICE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that stockbrokers have to house their clerks?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am giving an illustration, because we get into the habit of regarding landlords as a class apart by themselves. But it does not matter whether it is housing clerks or not. It is a question of whether this House of Commons is going to take up this position, that if any section of the community cannot perform their social obligations, or social functions, functions that have been historically attached to the possession of certain kinds of property, a class that has got into that state has a claim upon the public purse and can use that claim, when it is met, for the improvement of their own personal possessions. There is no question of lack of sympathy with the landlords or with any class of the community, distressed or otherwise. It is a good, sound principle of public policy which is being violated by this Bill, and the point is this, that when they have got this help, then the property improved by the public still remains their own. [Interruption.] It certainly does. The property still remains their own, and that is a very moderate way of stating it, because, as I shall show, so far as this Bill is concerned, it is the improved property that still remains their own. [An HON. MEMBER: " There are reservations!"]
The reservations amount to nothing whatever as a matter of possession.
Hon. Members opposite, in supporting this Bill, are going to try to maintain private ownership at the public expense. That is a good Tory doctrine, and I hope, when they publish to their rural constituents the stories that they are going to tell about this Debate—[HON. MEMEBERS: Hear, hear !"]—I have no doubt they will, and my appeal to them is not that they should not do it, but that they should do it honestly. Will they make this clear? The position we take up is this, that we are opposed to this Bill, and the reason why we oppose this Bill is that we are opposed to private ownership being maintained at the, public expense. I shall look with great interest for those stories, and perhaps hon. Members opposite, especially those who are friends of my own, will do me the pleasure of sending me a copy of them, which is going to give an accurate account of the position of the Opposition to-day. "But," it is said, "the owner under this Bill has to spend one-third of the cost of the improvement, and for that, he is only going to get 3 per cent. interest."
There are two observations that have to be made in connection with that statement, which is a perfectly true statement. The first is this: If the condition of the landed classes—I am not going to use the term now with reference to any of those landlords with outside interests, because I leave them out of account for the purpose of the argument, but I am referring to the landowner, for whom I have a very great affection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Oh, yes—who owns land, who wishes to do his duty by it, who has inherited not merely property, but a condition. That is the man we are considering, and we are asked to believe that this is the position, that he is practically scraping the bottom all the time, that he has no margin, that when he pays his bills year by year he has nothing left over, but just manages to do on his income. What is the use of this proposal to that man? It is no use at all. It is absolutely useless to that man. " You provide one-third, and when you have provided the third, you are only allowed to charge 3 per cent. upon it." That man, as described, cannot take advantage of this Bill.

Mr. RYE: He can borrow up to 90 per cent,

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member who interrupts, or, if not himself, then one of his colleagues, made the point that, though he is only allowed to charge 3 per cent, for the capital sunk in housing, he has to pay 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. for that capital when he borrows it. That class that has got to pay 3 per cent, for borrowed money and increase the rate of the estate's debts and mortgages, is not, as a class, to be benefited by this Bill.

Sir A. SPROT: Hear, hear! It is the labourer who benefits.

Mr. MacDONALD: : I hope hon. Members are not going to be too smart. What I mean by saying that that class will not be benefited—

Sir A. SPROT: The labourer will have a better house.

Mr. MacDONALD: I must put it in a different form of words in order that hon. Members may understand. I am always willing to accommodate them. This Bill is of no use to the labourer under those conditions, because his landlord cannot supply the money that he has to supply in order that the Bill may be put into operation. Therefore, this Bill, from the point of view of increasing the burdens of the bankrupt landlord, is just the ordinary sort of Tory proposal which looks all right on paper, but which, in practice, as experienced by the agricultural labourer, will be found to have nothing whatever to do with him. But the landlord who does take advantage of it, what does he get? He gets this: His property, according to the statement of the Minister, at the present moment is derelict. When he has paid his third and got the other two-thirds necessary from the public purse, he then has got a marketable property, which is rather an important thing.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: He cannot sell it for 20 years.

Mr. MacDONALD: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the last Subsection of Clause 3, he will find there is no question of 20 years about it.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: The house cannot be sold, unless the Minister and the authority agree, within 20 years, and if they give permission for it to be sold,
the whole of the money loaned has to lie paid back by the landlord, plus compound interest.

Mr. MacDONALD: Supposing 1 was going to offer the hon. and gallant Member a gift of a certain sum of money, with absolute security, and say he could not draw it for 20 years, would he refuse it as being nothing? Of course not. This property is being improved, otherwise what is the use of the Bill? It is perfectly true that it is being improved on conditions, but the conditions cease to operate at the end of 20 years. Is the estate going to disappear into thin air at the end of 20 years? I know people who are putting money into estates that they will not realise for 80 years. What about afforestation? The capital that is put into afforestation is not realised in 20 years.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: People cannot live in trees.

Mr. MacDONALD: It is extraordinarily clever, undoubtedly, to make the observation that people cannot live in trees. No; but the landlord who puts money into trees goes through exactly the same economic operation as the landlord who puts £50 into these cottages in order to bag £150 in 20 years. The capita.' operation of this Bill is that a landlord pays £50, and gets value for £150. If this Bill is going to be enormously useful, as hon. Members opposite say. the capital value of the houses on the estate is going to be enormously increased, and that is why hon. Members opposite are in favour of it. Farm labourers! The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans said, why did we not introduce a Bill like this? It has taken his own party two years—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I did not say a Bill like this; I said anything to do with repairs.

Mr. MacDONALD: This is not an agricultural Measure; it is a landlords' Measure. It is perfectly plain to those Members who are owners of land, and especially to those who are agents, that unless the landlord interest—I am not thinking of individuals, but of the economic interest—can now dip its hands liberally into the public purse, it cannot continue to exist. By talking sym-
pathetically about improving labourers' houses and keeping all the control in the hands of the landlord, they are not merely improving houses; they are adding to the landlords' interest at the expense of the public interest, in order td keep the landed interest going. Supposing it were in the labourers' interest, would any Government allow this opportunity to pass without imposing conditions upon how the ownership of these houses is to be used regarding the people who live in them? There is the question of tied houses. What is the position? One-third of the money is going to be supplied by the State, one-third by the local authority and one-third by the landowner. Although the public authorities supply £2 for every £1 that the landlord provides, with the single exception of 3 per cent. for 20 years on his one-third of the capital, the landlord is absolutely master of the expenditure of the money. The public authority should, at any rate, control to the extent of its holding, instead of which you have the pettifogging control given in the Bill.
This is not an agricultural labourers' housing Bill, but, a Bill to support the landed interest. I doubt the value of this Bill altogether. It is going to take away from the rural district councils all incentive to use coercion. The matter is handed over to the county councils. Why? I have tried to visualise the landlord who is borrowing money in order to do this beneficent work, and being so ashamed of the work that he is doing that he cannot go to the rural council and ask them to help him. There must be something in the Bill which has not been described from the benches opposite. If a man feels he is benefiting his labourers, that he is putting his property into good repair, that lie is making life tolerable to scores of people on his estate whom he could not help without assistance, why cannot he go to the district council in a proper businesslike way and say, "I want to take advantage of this Bill. The House of Commons has given me that advantage. I come to you and ask you to approve these plans of beneficence." It is said that he would be too sensitive, that he has too much self-respect to go to a rural district council, but he is not too sensitive to go to a county council. The argument is too absurd. What is the real reason? I venture to say the
real reason is that if a county council be made the authority under this Bill, there will be much less done under this Bill; there will be much less pressure brought to bear upon housing conditions by the county council than would be the case by the existing housing authority, which is the rural district council.
This Bill is brought in at the last quarter of the eleventh hour of the Session. They want something for window-dressing; they want to be able to go into the rural districts, and say "This is what we are doing." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] I am very much obliged to hon. Gentlemen for admitting that is so. They want some encouragement, and with that encouragement perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health may go back to Ladywood. The Bill strengthens the very evils which, it is said, its object is to cure. The right hon. Gentleman looks upon it as a Bill inspired by the great desire of the Tory party to improve the housing conditions of the agricultural labourers. I beg to assure hon. Members that things are happening very fast, and one of the things which is happening fastest of all is that the agricultural labourer is becoming far too enlightened to be taken in by this sort of thing.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I think we have never heard such a vague, contradictory, confused speech, remote altogether from the difficulties of the housing question, than that to which we have just listened, and if I may venture to say so to the right hon. Gentleman, one which showed a complete absence of knowledge of the contents of this Bill. Those of us who sit on this side, are, of course, not unused to expressions such as those which have been used concerning this Bill and other similar pieces of legislative work which have come from these Benches. I remember very well, in 1923, that when my right hon. Friend introduced his Housing Bill, the Measure was described in very much the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman has used to-day. On that occasion he said, or, at any rate, one of his colleagues said, that that Bill would stereotype poverty in housing for half a century to come, that it was sheer political bankruptcy and matters of that kind. We know to-day that that Act has brought
about the building of 169,000 new houses —a larger contribution than has been made by any other Act of Parliament. I remember, too, very well when the Widows' Pensions Bill was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, I think, referred to the Measure as the most fiendish, heartless and cruel fraud ever perpetrated. We have heard the same kind of thing this evening. I venture to say, apart from partisan and prejudiced opinion, such as has been evidenced here to-day, there is no doubt that this Bill will considerably better the housing conditions of the agricultural workers of this country. There is one thing, at any rate, which the discussion to-day has shown, I think, generally in all quarters of the House, and that is that there is a great deal which remains to be done to secure further and better housing accommodation in rural areas. The only difference, as I see it, between one side of the House and the other, is that we are bringing a practical proposal before the country to-day, and, as far as I have teen able to gather from the speeches made opposite, they are absolutely bankrupt and barren of any proposal.
8.0 P.M.
I would like to say a word or two upon some of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) who moved the rejection of this Bill referred to what he called the enormous expense that apparently, was to go into the pockets of the landlords. In any event—and this is what, I think, the right hon. Gentleman overlooked when he talked about differentiating in the matter of rural landlords—anyone who knows anything about the housing conditions at all, knows that there is a special case for assisting rural housing. That was done by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in his Bill of 1924. Special arrangements had to be made, and when the hon. Gentleman opposite accuses this Government of embarking upon enormous expenditure of this kind, I would remind him of the provisions of the 1924 Act which were introduced into this House on the ground that they were going to provide houses at rents which the humblest could pay, and for that reason, mainly, a subsidy of £300 was going to be contributed by the State and the local authority. When you compare the proposals under that
Act with this scheme, there are two very striking differences. In the first place, there was no provision laid down in the Act of 1924 as to who was to occupy those houses, with the result that to-day a very curious class of people are in occupancy of them. There was also the marked difference in the two schemes that, under the Wheatley Act, the rents of the Wheatley houses would be at least double the amount of the rents of the cottages and houses we are assisting under this scheme. Under that Act, so far from providing houses at a rent which the people in the poorest circumstances could pay, notwithstanding the very considerable expenditure, there is practically no difference between the rents of rural houses and those of the houses erected under the other schemes. Let us assume that 20,000 houses may be assisted under the provisions of this scheme. There would be a cost to the State of £80,000 for 20 years, and no one would say that that was an extraordinary contribution to make, having regard to the good which may be achieved. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise) asked what was meant by "reconditioning." I would refer him to the general wording of the Bill, which will be dealt with by the local authorities, subject to the scheme being approved by the Minister of Health. There are all sorts of things—the substitution of slates for thatching, the replacing of old stone floors, the provision and enlargement of windows, and matters of that kind. One of the greatest needs in the rural areas to-day is adequate water supply, and it will be quite possible under this Bill to arrange for a number of houses to be dealt with so that proper sanitation can be provided at comparatively small cost.
The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) raised the point about the £400 and the £50 limits. These are Committee points which we can discuss when we come to Committee; but I think the House will agree that, in the first place, we must have some limit. It is not the intention of this Bill, for instance, to provide money for papering houses and matters of that kind. It is not the intention that money should be utilised for large
houses, but only for houses suitable for agricultural workers. There is one other matter which has not been mentioned to-day, and that is the considerable advantage which the scheme has inasmuch as it will not fall upon the ordinary building labour of the country. Even at this moment I believe it is true to say that there are two jobs for every man in the ordinary building industry, and I read in one of the trade journals, not very long ago, that, taking a conservative view of the existing conditions and prospects of the building industry, it may be affirmed, short of a national economic collapse, that there is twice as much work in the building trade than can be undertaken in the next 20 years. When you are considering different proposals as to how you are to advance further with housing, it is a very important matter when you are able to introduce a scheme of this kind which will not make demands on the ordinary building labour of the country. In many districts you will be able to fall back on local labour, and still further advance the progress of housing.
The chief criticism in relation to the details of this Bill, especially from hon. Members behind me, has been the fact that we have chosen the county councils to do this work. I would like to put one point which weighed with me in support of that proposal. One of the things that will have to be done in connection with this scheme is to keep a very careful check of the estimates of all the reconditioning schemes put forward by various local authorities. It will be fairly easy, I think, for a central department to keep control and see that reasonable economy is exercised if you deal simply with county councils, but, directly you say that the district council must be the body, or possibly, as it might be under this Bill, urban district councils, or possibly councils of non-county boroughs, you will immediately be presented with a very great difficulty. Then the central department would have to deal with some 648 rural district councils, 791 urban district councils, and 247 councils in non-county boroughs; in all a number of authorities totalling 1,686. I am afraid that the difficulties in that event would be very considerable indeed. There is an important proviso in relation to this matter, in Clause 5, which gives the Minister, after consultation with the county council, power to relegate the work to the district
council. Obviously, if a county council were to say that they did not want to do the work, and the district council was anxious to do it, that would be one of the instances which we had in mind when we drafted this Clause. This, I think, may be regarded as a reasonable compromise between the different points of view. We hope that we shall have authorities who will be desirous of working this scheme, and one of the most gratifying things said this afternoon was the statement by the hon. Member for East Brad- ford (Mr. Fenby), who said he would go to his own county council and urge them to put this scheme into operation.
I would like to refer to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and his complete misconception of the provisions of this Bill. I do not think that he could have read this Bill. I must confess I was not able to follow him; no doubt it was my own fault, when he endeavoured to prove that, somehow or another, a great advantage was to be conferred upon the landlords, and that the Bill had no regard, or very little regard, to the interests of the agricultural labourer. He has made various suggestions as to what could be said when hon. Members on this side of the House are in the agricultural areas. When he goes and makes another speech on this subject, will he tell his audience that there is no possible opportunity for any landlord, under the provisions of this Bill, to get any practical benefit in money which he can put in his pocket for 20 years to come? That might be a good start to any explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I wonder whether he will tell them that, under the provisions of this Bill, the most rigid safeguards exist whereby no one can occupy a cottage which has been assisted, for 20 years to come unless he is of the status mentioned in Clause 3, and that, so far from being, as in the houses which have been assisted under the Wheatley Act, and which anyone can go into of any type or kind, under this Bill,
the dwelling shall not be occupied except by a person, whether as owner or tenant, whose income is, in the opinion of the local authority, such that he would not ordinarily pay a rent in excess of that paid by agricultural workers in the district.
That condition is supported by very drastic powers given to the local authority. If a condition like that were broken, let us say for a month, the person who did so would place himself in very great jeopardy. The whole of the money advanced to him immediately becomes due, and the local authority could step in and exercise all the rights which are conferred on mortgagees under the law of the land.
The right hon. Gentleman also has forgotten to say that this scheme absolutely prevents any possibility of these dwellings being used by the. Week-ender. There is no provision of that kind in the Wheatley Act. The Bill also ensures that the landlord himself has to make a considerable contribution to this scheme. I must say I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his arguments in this matter, because, as I understood him, he said a certain number of landlords would not be able to benefit. Therefore, I do not quite sec how he calls this a landlords' Bill. The conditions, to which considerable time and attention has been given, have been very carefully studied with a view to seeing that the people who benefit are the occupiers of the houses or cottages themselves. I venture to suggest that the real ground for the opposition to this Bill has not been revealed by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to the House to-day. He was more frank when he was speaking on Saturday at a garden party. He then said—I am quoting from the "Times" report—
They had got to build up the countryside as part of the great national problem of the effective use of economy.

Mr. MacDONALD: It should have been "of their resources."

Sir K. WOOD: Of their resources. The Labour party was going to oppose the Bill that was to be introduced into the House of Commons next week, because it gave a subsidy to landlords under the name of an aid to housing. One of the most melancholy things today was to see the old families having to sell their heirlooms in order to pay their death duties. But, if they were to justify themselves, they must keep their estates up to the mark. Did they want a lots of vulgar people, nouveaux riches, to come down and dominate them? Whatever could be said of the old landlords, they were not vulgar people. They did not destroy the soul at the expense of the body. Now they were told to save the body at the
expense of the soul. He was not having it. The only way out was nationalisation.
So what the agricultural labourers have to choose between are the proposals—I venture to say the practical proposals, of this Bill—and, apparently, nationalisation, by which, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman means putting the State into control, using the municipalities as agents to let and recondition the houses, and do everything else that has to be done in that way. There is not much doubt as to what would be the reply of most agricultural workers living in the conditions which have been described to us by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I venture to suggest that, so far from abusing or repudiating this Bill, a very large number of people who, unhappily, have lived for so long in these unfortunate conditions will gladly welcome the Bill. It is a considerable step forward in the housing programme of the country. The Labour Opposition, if they like, can vote against this Bill, as they voted against the Housing Act, 1923, and as they voted against widows' pensions, but if they do so they will vote against a Measure which will provide many agricultural workers with decent sanitary dwellings at rents which they can pay; and we shall see by the votes of the Opposition to-night whether political partisanship is to prevail over an opportunity to improve the conditions of agricultural workers.

Mr. J. JONES: It is marvellous to hear such an expert agriculturist as the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us, who sits for a constituency opposite to my own, admitting even at this late stage of the housing problem that there is an agricultural housing question He belongs to the party who pretend to be the particular friends of agriculture and who now have to admit that the housing conditions in the rural areas are so bad that there must be an alteration, but, as usual, it is to be at the expense of the nation. If the landlord has to foot the bill, then there is nothing doing. People in the agricultural areas have been badly housed ever since I can remember. I am the son of an agricultural worker. Pig-styes would have been a good name for the houses we used to live in, but now, owing to the fact that there is a Labour party in existence, hon. Members oppo-
site have discovered the necessity of a Housing Bill for rural areas. But the landlord is going to be master of the situation. He finds one-third of the money and the nation and the local authorities find the remaining two-thirds. What will be the position of the agricultural labourer? Will he be allowed to get a house under this scheme if he does not agree with the political opinions of his landlord? That is a straight question. Are we going to subsidise the claim of the landlord still to continue tied tenancies? That is what it means. We are going to subsidise a landlord to keep his tenant in thrall. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted it when he spoke of
the kind of tenant accustomed to occupying these dwellings.
Anybody else who comes along is not to have the opportunity of occupying one of these cottages. What does that mean? The job with the house; the house. with the job; and if you are up against the landlord, out of your job you go and out of your house. The State is going to subsidise victimisation. Some of us know something about it. We have lived under those conditions ourselves.
The landlords say they want to carry on—the old landlords, of course. The gentleman from the Prudential who used to feed his chickens according to his leavings—he was a great old English gentleman but the new landlord is a different kind of person. He cannot carry on, and therefore he wants the nation to come to his assistance, and two-thirds of the cost of this housing scheme is to be borne by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The landlord pays only one-third, but takes two-thirds of the power. He is still the man who controls the conditions of housing in his own area. This is the Tory scheme- of housing! I would like to meet the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in his own constituency and argue this Bill with him. Will he subsidise Woolwich to house people there'? Is he prepared to bring forward a housing scheme and find one-third of the cost, let alone two-thirds, out of public funds? I ask the hon. Gentleman. It is no good his talking to an bon. Member from Scotland; let him talk to England. I live opposite the hon. Member, on the other side of the Thames, and I want to know if he is prepared to go down to the Town Hall at Woolwich
and argue with me whether housing shall be subsidised in the way proposed in this Bill. I am putting it straight and plain.
The housing problem in the working-class districts of East London is just as great as it is in the rural areas in England. Why cannot we have the same kind of subsidy? When West Ham ask for a loan to build houses they are told they cannot have it, except at 6 per cent. Yet we have this Bill. It is a piece of political hypocrisy, an attempt to buy votes. Talk about corruption! The right hon. Gentleman who happens to be the foreman of the hon. Member for West Woolwich charged us in West Ham with being corrupt. What is this Bill? Simply a bribe to get votes in the countryside at the next General Election. The Tory party never troubled their heads about housing in the rural areas until they found themselves up against the industrial problem in the great industrial centres. How can the hon. Member opposite justify this Bill? If two-thirds of the expense of housing the people is to be borne as a local and national charge, why should the landlord be allowed to have control. Give us the same amount of control in the industrial centres of the country and the housing problem will be solved.
The hon. Member knows what he is doing. He is out to justify the Tory party, the only thing he can do. He is asking the people of this country to find money to bolster up a rotten system in the rural areas. Who has been responsible for bad housing in the country districts? The people whom he is defending here to-night. Everybody knows that the landlords have neglected their duty. They have been subsidised by being given a reduction of agricultural rates, and now they are wanting another subsidy. His Master's Voice—Edison Bell Record—decides the issue! They have to pay for the votes they get, and they are paying by this Bill. They say they are going to give better houses to workers in I he rural areas. [HON. MEMBERS "So we are!"] Yes, mansions in the skies—
There is a happy land far, far away.
What kind of houses will they be? Glorified rabbit hutches, and one-third is to he paid by the landlord in 20 years, and two-thirds by the taxpayers and the ratepayers. A bigger infliction was never
made upon the people of this country. This is an attempt to make the rural workers believe that the landlord is their real friend, but as a matter of fact he is their old-time enemy. If you want to settle the housing problem, why not make the land the property of the nation, and then we shall no longer have these parasites living at the expense of the masses of the people.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I wish to congratulate the Minister of Health upon bringing this Bill forward, because I believe it will do an immense amount of good. Of course, it must be taken as only part of an attempt to solve this great national problem. The Socialists have never made the slightest attempt to assist agriculture; they have always exploited and sweated the agriculturist. We have heard the late Chancellor of the Exchequer calling agriculture
the pampered pet of the Tory party.
It is not the pampered pet of the Tory party at all. The simple fact is that the Tory party realises the immense importance of this industry to the country. There are something like 500,000 workers in this industry and it is one of three or four of the greatest industries in the country. This Bill is intended to give the agriculturist some sort of assistance by improving his housing conditions. We hear a great deal about this Bill being a subsidy for landlords but the people who make those remarks must be those who make certain trips in chars-a-bane into the country; they certainly have never studied the tremendous efforts made by landlords up and down the country to improve rural conditions in every possible way, and who let their property at uneconomic rents. In addition to what landlords of that type do, there are countless landlords who are the owners of small cottages and cottage property who will gain enormously by a little bit of assistance in the way of capital to help them to improve their cottages. In my own constituency there are plenty of cottages owned by quite small capitalists, and what they would like is just a little bit of help to enable them to put down £100, or a little bit more, in order to bring their cottage up to date. There are many hundreds of cottages which have been successfully renovated and reconstructed. I know of many cottages which, with the addition of a damp
course and other minor improvements, would be turned into admirable dwellings which anybody would be delighted to live in.
There are certain points in this Bill about which I should like a little more information. I think it is a Bill which may easily be improved in Committee, but there are certain things in it about which I have considerable doubt. One is that we shall unquestionably find obstinate landlords who will be prepared to say: "I get my rents all right without bothering about getting this money through the county council, and I am not going to bother about it." I think the Bill should make it possible to bring pressure on landlords of that type. There is quite a considerable number of cottages which are incapable of being reconstructed. They are of the wrong type and only just hold together. It does not matter how much money is spent upon them, they could never be made fit for habitation. I would like to know how that kind of cottage is going to be dealt with. I also know of cottages where the inhabitants are doing their best to live under beastly conditions in buildings which ought not to be standing and ought to have been pulled down long ago, because they have been condemned. The people are only living in them because there is nowhere else for them to go. I do not feel that this Bill covers that point at all.
The most serious question of all is the unwilling local authority. Speaking of local authorities, I agree that it is better to put the responsibility on the higher and less get-at-able local authorities like the county council rather than the rural district councils, which have to live at peace with all their neighbours. These are the points which strike me as important, and which it may be possible to put right when the Bill is in Committee. We have heard that love is blind, while some people have said that it is a lucky thing that it is blind. I see no reason why hate and prejudice should also be blind, although they seem to be blind when considered by the Socialist party because they are blinded by prejudice and hatred of the landlord as though he was some vile sort of beast, incapable of doing a good thing at all. The country landlords are the people to keep the
country going if they are given the least possible encouragement. The Socialist opposition, of which we have heard so much this afternoon, is not born of any desire to improve this Bill, and, undoubtedly, it is in furtherance of a plan to accentuate trouble and difficulties. I have one very strong hope, and it is that the Socialist party will not go back on their promise to divide on this Bill. I can only congratulate them if they do divide upon digging just a little bit deeper the pit they have already dug for themselves in agricultural constituencies.

Mr. VIANT: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that the hon. Member who has spoken made a statement that the Socialist party had never done anything for the agricultural labourer. It is for the purpose of correcting that statement that I have risen to speak. Evidently the hon. Member who made that assertion does not remember the Wages' Board, a constructive measure which has done more than anything else to enable the agricultural labourer to pay a decent rent for the house he desired to occupy, and it has at least raised the average wage of the agricultural labourer in this country.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I would remind the hon. Member that we are not now discussing the question of the Wages' Board.

Mr. VIANT: All I was pointing out was that the agricultural labourer is in a better position to pay a reasonable rent now than he would have been but for the passing of the Act to which I have alluded. That Act was passed by the Socialist Government, and, on the average, the wage of the agricultural labourer to-day is between 4s. and 5s. a week more than it was, thanks to the passing of that Act. We are desirous of raising the wages rather than bringing down the rent to meet the wages. As has already been said in this Debate, new houses cannot be erected to-day at such a price that the rent will be low enough to enable the agricultural labourer to meet it. The proposal before the House is devised, as has been stated by the Government, for the purpose of enabling the agricultural labourer to pay the rents obtaining at the present time in agricultural areas.
The subsidy or grant that is going to be given to the landlord is to be met out
of public funds, but the general public is to have no control over that grant after it has been given. We prefer that, where money is advanced from the public purse, there should be control. Otherwise, I fear we are justified in saying that this is not merely bribery, but one of the worst forms of jobbery; and that jobbery is going to take effect through the agency of the county council. The county councils to-day are controlled by the landowning class, by the landlords in the agricultural areas, and they are going to take good care that they look after their friends, as the Tory party are looking after their friends to-day. It is nothing short of absolute jobbery in that respect. The buildings that are to be repaired as a result of this Bill are buildings that, in my view at least, are, in the main, not worth spending this money on. From our point of view it is far preferable to embark on the erection of new buildings. Then you will get value for money, and they will be an economic asset to the community. That will not be the effect of this Bill.
Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has said, the agricultural labourer will undoubtedly be more under the control of the landlord. We know what happens. The agricultural labourer has only to let it he known that he is a member of a trade union, he has only to take part in a trade union demonstration, and invariably he loses his job; and, in addition to losing his job, he is evicted from his house. We are desirous of ending that kind of thing, but this Bill

is not going to assist us in ending it. It is still going to continue in the hands of the landlords the power to evict from these houses those people who do anything contrary to the desire of the landlord. The Bill will undoubtedly keep Toryism enthroned in the rural areas throughout this country, and if only from that point of view we should be justified in opposing it.

In the first place, it is going to be reactionary in its effect; secondly, it is not going to give economic value to the community; and, thirdly, it is going to keep the agricultural labourer under the control of the landlord class in the rural areas. It is reactionary from every point of view. Rather should we embark upon a policy which will give the corn-inanity economic value for the money it is spending. The policy should be such as to give to the agricultural worker a greater sense of freedom than he has at the present time. When the Socialist Government was in office it did as much as it possibly could in the interest of the agricultural labourer. The Housing Act,, 1924, as applied to rural areas, will give to the agricultural worker a house that is at least habitable and far more sanitary than ever these cottages can be made, whatever expenditure is incurred upon them. I feel, therefore, that I am justified in going into the Lobby, as I hope my party will do, in opposition to this Bill.

Question put, " That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 7].

Division No. 424.]
AYES.
[8.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonet
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Albery, Irving James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dawson, sir Philip


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, E. T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cassels, J. D.
Dixey, A. C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Drewe, C.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H,-
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edmondson, Major A. J


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Christie, J. A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Berry, Sir George
Clarry, Reginald George
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Ellis, R. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Elveden, Viscount


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Couper, J. B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Courtauld, Major J. S
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Courthope, Lieut -Col. Sir George L.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Brass, Captain W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Fenby, T. D.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crawfurd, H. E.
Fermoy, Lord


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Flelden, E. B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Ford. Sir P. J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rye, F. G.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Little. Dr. E. Graham
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gates, Percy
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co, Down)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Skelton, A. N.


Gower, Sir Robert
MacIntyre, Ian
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Grace, John
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smithers, Waldron


Grenfell, Edward C. {City of London)
Macquisten, F. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grotrian, H. Brent
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Malone, Major P. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Storry-Deans, R.


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hartington, Marquess of
Meller, R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Haslam, Henry C.
Merriman, F. B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tinne, J. A.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hills, Major John Waller
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Trvon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hilton, Cecil
Murchison, C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watts, Dr. T.


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Neville, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'd.)
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Hurst, Gerald B.
Phillpson, Mabel
Wolmer, Viscount


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pilcher, G.
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde;


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Con'l)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Jacob, A. E.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jephcott, A. R.
Raine, W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ramsden, E.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remer, J. R.



Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee. Clement Richard
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey. Joseph
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Broad, F. A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Walsh, Rt Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee. F.
Whiteley, W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Duncan. C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)



Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Riley.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry



Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — LEAD PAINT (PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition, of use of lead paint in painting interior of buildings.)

"(1) from and alter the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, it shall not be lawful for any person to employ a person in painting with lead paint any part of the interior of a building or for any person employed in painting to use lead paint in painting any part of the interior of a building.

(2) The last preceding Sub-section shall not apply to—

(a) such buildings used for industrial purposes as may be excluded from the provisions of this Section by an Order of the Secretary of State made after consultation with the organisations, if any, representative of the employers and workers in the trade; or
(b) paint with lead paint for artistic purposes or the process of fine lining in such circumstances or in accordance with such conditions as may he prescribed."—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment, if carried, will ratify what is termed the Geneva Convention. The Bill as it stands, in spite of the Amendments inserted in Committee, falls short of the Convention itself. That is the main reason why we are proposing this Amendment to-night. The Labour party, industrially and politically, has always stood for the Convention, the whole Convention, and nothing but the Convention, because the Convention itself emerged as a compromise between conflicting forces. I feel sure I can appeal to reasonably-minded Members on both sides of the House to support my Amendment. The history of this International Labour Convention is so well known that I feel sure those who have interested themselves at all in the subject will agree with me when I say that if the British House of Commons passes a Bill merely providing Regulations for the use of lead paint, it will be one of the biggest betrayals of our international obligations that has ever been committed by this country.
It would be well if I made another point quite clear. This Bill, when it was introduced, was totally unlike that introduced by the Labour Government in 1924. If that Bill were carried the Convention would have been ratified. It was lost because certain Members of this House were satisfied then, as they appear to be now, that Regulations arc all that is required. We have tried to prove, unsuccessfully, so far as the Government are concerned, that Regulations will not achieve the object they have in view. I do not know anything at all about the technicalities of the problem, but I am sufficiently conversant with the theoretical side to believe that these Regulations will not prevent lead poisoning among operative painters. I shall try to prove later on that Regulations in another industry which were supposed to achieve the object the Government had in view, after having been in operation for 13 years, have not prevented lead poisoning.
It is an erroneous deduction that the Government and their supporters have arrived at that Regulations will prevent lead poisoning. In fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill listened to a debate in Committee and heard an hon. Member who sits behind me, who has actually been engaged in painting operations himself—declare against Regulation. No one can speak with greater authority on the subject than the operative painter; he knows from experience what he is talking about.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us what he told us in Committee, that the Government desire to see what Regulations can do, and they have given a promise that, if they fail in their object, they will bring in a Bill later in favour of total prohibition. But, fortunately, this Government will not he here to find out whether Regulations will have achieved their object. The day is coming soon when the Labour party will sit on that side of the House. They will be able to find out what the Regulations have done and in what way they have failed in their object.
There is in fact no way of dealing with this question except by the total prohibition of the use of white lead in paint. I have already said that there is a strong
case in support of our point of view in this connection. In 1913, there was a great outcry in this country because many women and girls employed in the potteries in Staffordshire were suffering from lead poisoning contracted in the course of their employment. Regulations not very much unlike those which are likely to be issued under this Bill, were issued in 1913 to cover the pottery trade. It was said then by the spokesmen of the Government in office at that time that Regulations which would be enforced in the pottery industry would prevent lead poisoning. What has happened? In 1923, in spite of the enforcement of Regulations, apparently to the last comma, there were 44 cases of lead poisoning and 11 deaths. In 1924 there were 47 cases and 18 deaths. In 1925 there were 47 cases; I have not got the figures of the fatalities in that year. In the first half of 1926, there were 28 cases of lead poisoning, or at the rate of 56 per annum. The figures which I have given show that in spite of all the Regulations, and in spite of keen inspection by the Home Office, there has been an increase of lead poisoning in the potteries during the 13 years that Regulations have been in operation. Merely to regulate the use of white lead in any industry will not succeed.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office will probably tell the House, too, that the pottery industry is quite different from painting, and that Regulations have been very effective in connection with the manufacture of white lead. I do not dispute that Regulations have been more effective in connection with the production and manufacture of white lead than in the pottery industry. But it is quite a different thing to regulate men who use paint containing white lead and who work in twos and threes and sometimes singly, than it is to regulate the manufacture of white lead in a factory where there are 200 or 300 people employed. Although Regulations may he effective in connection with the production of white lead in a factory, where there is mass production, they cannot be effective in regard to painters who work in ones or twos all over the country.
9.0 P.M.
This is a very serious question. I do not know whether the House appreciates
the suffering and agony that goes on in this country through lead poisoning. I am specially interested, because I have seen men suffering from this deadly poison. If the House can save even one life by passing a Measure for the total prohibition of the use of white lead in paint, it ought to do so. The figures regarding cases of poisoning from this cause are impressive, because they are on the increase. I would not he quite so insistent in favour of the total prohibition of the use of this commodity in paint were it not for the fact that the figures of cases of lead poisoning are on the increase from year to year. In 1919 there were 207 eases, and in 1922, 246.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are these cases of lead poisoning?

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, so far as I understand. The figures which I am quoting are taken from the Factory Inspector's Report; they are simply the reported figures, and do not include all the cases. In 1925, there were as many as 486 cases. This question ought, therefore, to be settled once for all, instead of merely tinkering with it, as the Government are now doing.
All the operative painters who are organised in their trade unions, as most of them are so organised, I am glad to say, are in favour of the Amendment which I am moving. The Government may say, "That is not sufficient for us. We have other interests to think of." I will, therefore, give the opinions of another set of interested people. The master painters, too, are absolutely unanimously, through their organisation, in favour of the Amendment. More than that, medical skill and science is practically unanimous in favour of the Convention. I know that a very well-known gentleman in the medical profession has recently altered his mind in connection with this problem, but that is not sufficient for my purpose.
There is one thing that stands out clear and supreme in connection with this matter. The Government of 1921 sent a representative to Geneva to sit in conference with representatives of between 40 or 50 other nations, and he agreed to a Convention to prohibit the use of white lead for interior purposes.
He spoke and voted in favour of the Amendment which I am moving. I know that he did not represent a Tory Government, but he represented a Coalition, which was a Tory Government under another name. I have been in Geneva, too, and have heard statements made with respect to this country, that we have led the way in regard to industrial and social legislation, and so on. I have always been proud of that fact. What I complain about now is that in 1926 the Government are bringing forward a Bill, not to ratify the Convention, but to regulate the use of white lead in paint which, in fact, is a betrayal of the Convention. It will be nothing short of dishonour to this country if the Bill becomes law in its present form.
The case in favour of the Convention as a whole is a strong one, and I submit that the House ought to pass the Amendment. What has the Government to say as to the effect of passing a Bill of this kind? About 12 countries, on the Continent of Europe, have been faithful to the decision of 1921. Great Britain has in the past always led the way in these things, and we are proud of the fact, but to-night it is lagging behind. If we pass the Bill in its present form we shall strike a blow at the prestige of this country in connection with industrial legislation. In that event, I can foresee those countries who have already passed the Convention and translated it into law, turning round and saying: "If Great Britain, the biggest industrial country in Europe, gives up this Convention, to which they themselves gave their signature, then we will cancel the Convention altogether and scrap the legislation we have passed." That will be the natural effect.
I am sorry indeed to think not only of what is happening in this country to-night, but what will happen in Belgium, France and other countries which have ratified the Convention. I move this Amendment in the hope that even now the Government will see its way to accept it and ratify the Convention, thus bringing this country right up to date. This country, as I have said, stands high in the estimation of the people of Europe in connection with industrial legislation, and I want to maintain that prestige by inserting this Amendment in the Bill.

Mr. M0NTAGUE: I beg to second the Motion. Two points of view were expressed at the Geneva Convention. One was in favour of the total prohibition of the use of white lead paint and the other was in favour of regulations. The result of the discussions at Geneva was a compromise, which limited the use of white lead paint to exterior painting. When this question was debated in ties House a month or two ago a point of view was put forward which was extremely interesting as coming from a member of the Liberal party. The suggestion was that the Geneva Convention carried the proposal as it stood, because the predominant votes at that Convention were European as distinct from British; and that Belgium and France are much more interested in the manufacture of the substitute zinc white than this country, which is more interested in the manufacture of white lead. The suggestion was that economic pressure was brought to bear on the Conference and that it decided the question irrespective of the real merits of the case. If it is a question of economic pressure then I do not think there could have been greater economic pressure on the part of those interested in the provision of zinc white than the pressure which has been brought to bear on Members of this House by those interested in the manufacture of white lead in this country. It is a mean sort of argument. But the point is one which can be settled without any reference to whose interests it might be to support the white-lead industry and to whose interests it is to support the zinc-white industry. The medical evidence is overwhelming in favour of prohibition, and I should like to emphasise what has been said already with regard to the opinion of the trade itself, not only on the part of the workers but also by the employers. Let me quote the resolution which has been passed by the Joint Industrial Council:
The Painters' and Decorators' Joint Industrial Council of Great Britain has examined the text of the Lead Paint (Protection against Poison) Bill, and regrets to observe that it does not adopt the principles laid down by the Geneva Convention. This Council reiterates the resolution of the 23rd January, 1925, that it cannot support any Bill which gives a less degree of protection to the persons employed in painting than the Convention provides.
From every point of view, therefore, the case is made out for the ratification of a
Convention, and surely a case is made out from the point of view of the honour of this country. I want to draw the attention of the House to two points in connection with this matter. I will leave the technical considerations to the hon. Member who will follow me from this side of the House and who knows much more about them than I do. Let me make this passing observation. It is proposed by the new Clause to limit the use of white lead paint to exterior painting, leaving the substitute of zinc white paint for interior and more decorative work. The argument in favour of retaining white lead for painting work outside is that it is more durable, it is a much better commercial proposition. The fact that white lead is to be limited to exterior painting and the substitute only to be used for interior decorative work, where the effects of the weather do not apply, surely disposes of that particular argument. The first of the two points to which I want to draw the attention of the House is the question of the medical examination. It is provided in this Bill that the painter shall provide a clean bill of health when he applies for employment. That is what it means. The Regulations will be very difficult—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order. That point comes under a later Amendment.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I, of course, accept your ruling, and will therefore proceed to the second question on which I desire the attention of hon. Members, and on which I believe I shall be in order. It is with regard to the employment of women in lead painting work. If it is a bad thing for women to be employed in lead painting work why is it not a bad thing for men to he so employed? Why are women left out? Why are they regarded separately in this Bill and not allowed to be. employed in this particular kind of work, if it is not dangerous? If it is dangerous it is equally as dangerous to men as to women. I have had some correspondence from the Society for Equal Citizenship, arguing to the effect that women ought to be allowed to work at any kind of work in which men are employed, whether it is dangerous or not.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but is he quite in order
in dealing with this question, as there are two Amendments on the Paper on the subject. It would be much more convenient to discuss this point when they are reached.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question does not arise on this Amendment, which is confined to the prohibition of white lead paint in interior decorative painting.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not wish to question your ruling, and as I have referred to the points I had in mind I will leave it at that and conclude by pressing upon the House the importance of ratifying the Geneva Convention, and to do that rather than pass a Bill of this character, which cannot be operative because of the difficulties of enforcing any Regulations for the protection of men employed in white lead painting, especially those who are employed in twos and threes in private houses, where it is quite impossible to see that the washing accommodation and the use of overalls is properly carried out. We know that in all trades there are large numbers of men who are apt to be careless of the conditions under which they should work. They have to be protected, if not for their own sakes, for the sake of those for whom they are responsible.

Major HILLS: I confess that I approach this new Clause with some difficulty. In the past I did fight hard for prohibition of lead in the Potteries, and when the compromise of 1913 was arrived at. I watched its results with some interest. As far as lead in the Potteries is concerned, regulation, as opposed to prohibition, has done a very great deal, and I am sure that the Mover of this new Clause would admit that, although the figures are serious, and though a large amount of plumbism still exists, still the whole state of that industry is much better than it was in 1913 and before. But when we come to the question of painting, I confess that feel a difficulty. On the one hand you have the fact that the Regulations have had a certain amount of success in the Potteries. But the House must not forget that in the pottery industry, carried on inside a factory, the application of regulations is much easier than in a house which is being painted, where you have no machinery and no appliances. I believe that eventually we shall have
to prohibit lead both in paint and pottery glaze. I am sure that we shall, for although the toll of life is, perhaps, not great compared with some industrial diseases, if it can be abolished it ought to be abolished. Besides the actual toll of life, you have the terrible effect of plumbism on the offspring of both men and women who are affected with the poison. On the other side the arguments in favour of the Clause that is under consideration are these: First, there is the argument that regulation is very difficult when painters are painting the inside of a house here or there. Next, you have the fact that we did sign a Convention at Geneva in 1921, and that that Convention provided for the total prohibition—I think I am right— of lead for external painting as well as internal painting.

Mr. DAVIES: As far as I understood it, the compromise reached was total prohibition where lead was used for interior purposes.

Major HILLS: I am not prepared to see our country either go back on what we promised or to fall behind the leadership in industrial reform. If I may say a word to the Seconder of the Amendment, I would state that I regard it as a special Conservative duty to look after the welfare of the individual, and that has always been the pride of my party. So as far as the Convention is concerned, all the argument is in favour of this new Clause. Lastly you have the very significant fact that the whole trade has agreed to the abolition. It cannot be said that this is a Measure which the trade does not expect and which would cause a great loss or great unemployment, for the Joint Industrial Council, which includes the employers as well as the men and women who work in this trade, have agreed to the abolition of lead in paint used for interior painting. I have spoken often in favour of prohibition in the potteries, I have seen regulations introduced that have been only partially successful, and I cannot hope for the same amount of success for regulations in the painting industry; and, though I do see both sides of the case, I feel bound to support this Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the fact that perhaps the greatest medical authority on lead poisoning, who used to
be a strong advocate of prohibition, has now come round to regulation. I know that that is so as far as pottery is concerned, but I do not know whether that is so as far as painting is concerned. Still, in spite of that, I think that the balance of argument is in favour of the prohibition of lead for interior painting, and I am going to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It must continually be borne in mind that the new Clause is based on a compromise arrived at between those who argued in favour of the complete abolition of lead painting, and the employers and lead manufacturers on the other side who argued in favour of its retention. The compromise reached was that lead should be excluded from interior painting and allowed for exterior painting. That compromise was reached by the Convention which considered the subject. The whole issue went before the Plenary Conference at Geneva as an agreed Convention. Let me recall the words of Sir Montague Barlow, who represented the British Government at Geneva on this question.

Major HILLS: What date was that?

Mr. WALLHEAD: 1921. He raised a question with the President as to whether there. was a quorum or not, and he said:
It redounds to the credit of this great conference that we have now come to an agreement which, I understand, is satisfactory to all parties, not only employers and workers, but also to the individuals concerned. Under these circumstances it would be ten thousand pities, it would be wore than that, it would he a calamity, if, through any technical reasons this Convention was not finally and legally adopted. Under these circumstances, and on the basis of this compromise, agreed to by all concerned, and in order to avoid difficulties with regard to machinery, the British Government's vote will be passed in favour of the Convention.
That is just about as emphatic an assent to a principle as any that has been given by any British Government or British Minister anywhere. It is strange that at this present moment we should be here discussing whether a Conservative Government will accept the findings of a Conservative Minister. Although Sir Montague Barlow was a Coalition Minister at that time, he is a Conservative in politics, and it is diffi-
cult to see how the Government can get away from the position he himself occupied. It is well to remember the countries that have ratified this Convention. Most of the countries have already on this question reached absolute agreement. This is the information received from the International Labour Office. The Convention has been ratified by Austria, Czechoslovakia, Esthonia, Latvia, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Belgium, I believe, has also ratified, and the following countries have, according to information received from the International Labour Office, recommended a ratification: Bulgaria, Chile, Cuba, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Rumania. It will not be creditable to this country nor to this House if we, who pride ourselves on the position we have occupied hitherto in industrial legislation, throw down, not only this Convention arrived at at Geneva, but the Government's representative in charge of the Bill who gave the compromise his unadulterated acceptance.
As a matter of fact the only people who are opposing this are the lead manufacturers themselves. Those are the vested interests behind it. They agreed to this Convention, but they came back directly and began a campaign for the continued use of white lead everywhere. It. seems little to them what the terrible facts may be. 1 can speak from actual experience, from cases I have seen, of men who have had dropped wrists, and men with colic. I have seen scores of men with the lead lying in their lungs, and in whom I knew the poison existed. There is not very much escape. Some are more susceptible than others, but the danger is present-. It is as well to bear in mind that lead poisoning can accelerate or add, I believe, to other diseases. I speak in the presence of medical men who may be able to contradict me. I think I am right in saying that before the Committee of this House, which sat in 1911 and of which, I think, Sir Ernest Hatch was chairman, it was stated and not contradicted by any medical men or by the Departmental experts, that the use of lead paint, inducing lead poisoning, did induce nervous diseases and added to the danger of Bright's disease as well. There can be, it appears, effects upon the health of
people possibly not always attributable in a return to actual lead poisoning. As far as these Regulations are concerned, in my opinion they will be quite inadequate for dealing with this position. As a matter of fact every man who works at this industry knows that in a large amount of painting which takes place there is very little rubbing down done at all, even of a dry character. I am certain that if wet rubbing down is insisted upon, that will either increase the cost of the -work to be done, or it will not be done at all. The effect will be that if a man is discovered rubbing down, he will be sacked immediately. That will be one of the results of attempting to follow a Regulation such as this.
If there were no substitute for lead I could understand it. There is an effective substitute for white lead. Technically, white lead is of no value, as such. Applied or mixed with any non-binder, white lead would not preserve woodwork any more than whitewash. It would not be as good a preservative as Burton lime. The value of white lead is that it is the best vehicle which can be discovered for carrying oil; it is the oil in the paint that is the real preservative, not lead. If anyone could find a substitute which would carry oil as well as lead, the preservative character would be there without the use of white lead at all. We are asking that the use of white lead in interiors shall. be prevented. In interiors it is not the preservative character of the, paint that is required. Paint for the interior is used for decorative purposes. The question is whether a certain base can be made effective for the carrying of colour. What effect does it have upon colours? Will the base turn the colour? Can you guarantee that your tints will be preserved for a long period? If you can find a material which will be, from the decorative point of view, as useful as lead, then I say we ought to use it. All the objection to using zinc white will not bear one single moment's examination. Zinc white is a perfectly innocuous material for interior decoration. It will carry every colour, as far as I know. It will even carry lead pigments. It will carry lemon chrome just as well as lead itself, and there are plenty of tints zinc white. Will carry better than lead paint. It is
healthier for a person who lives in the house. It has no effect on the person dwelling in the house, or on the person using the material.

Dr. WATTS: Is the hon. Member aware there is a considerable danger in the use of zinc?

Mr. WALLHEAD: There may be in the use of zinc, but not when it is prepared as paint. This is oxide of zinc. I do not think that the French Government returns show that oxide of zinc is detrimental to the health of the men who use it. They use it largely in France and Belgium and have done so, to my knowledge, for two generations. Therefore I can scarcely accept the contention, although I know the hon. Member is a medical man. I can only speak from experience. From returns coming from countries where this is used I say there is no excuse for the use of this material which is admittedly detrimental to the health of the people who use it. It may be argued that there are interests outside this country that would desire that we should use zinc. We do not produce zinc nor do we produce what lead we use. The lead we use for making white lead is imported. The only thing done here is the grinding of the lead and its corrosion. What will grind white lead will grind zinc. There will be no displacement of labour. The same type of labour can be employed.
I think the machinery can be adapted at very little cost, and I do not think that the amount of vested interest, or the damage likely to be done to existing interests, is worthy of consideration for one moment. There can be no possible damage which would justify the House in passing a Bill to continue the use of this deadly material, affecting, as it does, the life of our people, not only in the generation originally concerned, but from one generation to another in a series of transmitted diseases. The illness of a man of 25 at the present day may have effects upon the girl or boy to be born 10 years hence. Surely that is something which we ought to stop if we have the power. We can do so with little or no cost to the country and with infinite credit to ourselves, and I urge the House to enhance its own dignity by refusing to sanction the use of this material and to do itself credit
by upholding the pledge given by the British representative at Geneva. I ask the House to place this nation in line with the other nations who have adopted the Convention.
If it was a question of prohibiting the use of this material everywhere, I might he prepared to admit that there were some forms of white lead which could not be replaced and that, under some form of strict regulation, we might have to countenance the use of white lead in certain cases. Here we are asking that prohibition shall be put into operation where regulation cannot be enforced. The majority of painters work for small employers, and the Bill requires these employers to have registered offices and to make returns of the men employed and to fill up various forms. I know many of these painting employers, and it takes them all their time to keep their books. They are not noted for their abilities in that respect, and the whole thing will be unwieldly and unworkable. The Government are going Lack on the pledge of a previous British Government and on the statement of a British Minister, simply because of a small vested interest which, for the sake of the profit derived from it, demands the continued use of a material which is deleterious to the health of the people.

Captain HACKING: The object of the proposed new Clause is to prohibit the use of lead paint in interior painting whilst allowing the use, under Regulation, of lead paint in outside painting of buildings, and the case brought forward in favour of the new Clause is based on two arguments. The first is that the Bill as it stands is a breach of faith, and the second that it is impossible for Regulation to be successful so far as interior painting is concerned. I wish to deal shortly with the charge that the Bill is a breach of faith. The breach of faith alleged is that we have only brought forward a Bill to make Regulations in regard to both interior and outside painting, so far as the use of lead paint is concerned. It is true that Sir Montague Barlow, who I admit was a Conservative, and also a member of the Coalition Government, took part in the International Conference at Geneva, and it is also true that he signed this Convention in connection with the use of lead paint in the interior of buildings. When
he came back he made a statement in the House of Commons in which he said:
I felt, at the time, doubt whether in view of the speed at which the compromise had been inevitably worked out and voted, difficulties might not arise in the future. With a caution which subsequent events have certainly justified, I explained that that vote was given solely on the basis of the compromise being a satisfactory one acceptable to all.
Even from the discussions which we have had this evening, and on the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill, it is clear that this compromise war not acceptable to all.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The lead manufacturers ran away from it.

Captain HACKING: I do not know who ran away from it, but it is clear from the hon. Member's own speech this evening that it was not accepted by all, and Sir Montague Barlow having made that statement exonerated not only him self, but his successors.

Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. and gallant Member really mean to say that if a representative of the British Government goes to Geneva and votes for a Convention, he can come back to the House of Commons and say that that Convention is not to be operated unless every Member of this House agrees to it? Is that the argument?

Captain HACKING: No, it is not the argument. Sir Montague Barlow said this at the Conference. That is what he told them at the Conference and repeated in the House of Commons.

Mr. VIANT: And the result of the vote in the Conference was nine to four with one abstention.

Captain HACKING: That is getting away from the point. I know what the voting was, but the Government are accused of a breach of faith because Sir Montague Barlow on a certain occasion voted in favour of a certain Convention. I have quoted what he said before he signed that Convention. It will be remembered that during the time the Conference was meeting at Geneva a Departmental Committee had been set up by the Coalition Government presided over by Sir Henry Norman, then Member for Blackburn. That Committee did not report during the time the Conference
was sitting, but they reported some time subsequent to the signing of the Convention and Sir Montague Barlow in the same speech spoke of this Report and said:
The Report seems to indicate that in view of recent discoveries some of the restrictions embodied in the draft Convention are not of such vital importance as they were in 1921. For instance, there is the question of wet sand-papering instead of dry rubbing-down. In these circumstances it is a matter which clearly calls for further consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1923; cols. 2420 and 2422, Vol. 163.]
Those are the two speeches made by Sir Montague Barlow after coming back from the Geneva Conference, and I hope they will carry weight with this House to refute the suggestion that there has been a breach of faith.
The second argument used has been in connection with the so-called impossibility of making these Regulations successful. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I think, said that regulation would be of no use, but perhaps ho forgot, when he made that statement, that there is at preset regulation of outdoor painting of buildings, and if you had to have prohibition for indoor painting and regulation for outdoor painting, surely that would be almost more impossible to carry out. The idea of regulation, some people say, is impossible to carry out, because the Regulations would he evaded, and the workmen themselves would not keep to the Regulations. One can quite conceive of a painter painting outside a house, and another painting inside, and that if they wished to avoid the Regulations they could perhaps put their pot of lead paint through the window from outside so that it would go inside, and in other ways it would be possible, if the men desired it, especially when you have part regulation and part prohibition, to make a farce of the whole thing. I think that regulation as a whole will be much easier to put into operation.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what the Regulations consist of that affect outdoor painting? I know of none.

Captain HACKING: The Regulations will be made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. WALLHEAD: But they do not exist now?

Captain HACKING: There are none of which I am aware now, but there will be Regulations under this Bill, and that is the reason why we are adopting this Bill. I say that it will be easier to regulate as a whole than to have part regulation and part prohibition. It has been said by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that the Regulations would not achieve their object. I think myself that the work-people engaged in painting with lead paint will try to carry out the Regulations, if only for the sake of their own health. They will realise the danger to themselves if they evade the Regulations. It may be said that they might be persecuted by their masters if they did carry out the Regulations, but the trade unions are very highly organised, and I see no reason at all why they should not report the matter of evasion, or impulsion to evade the Regulations, to their own trade union leaders, and in that way certainly they could get the inspectors to see that the Regulations were carried out.

Mr. WALLHEAD: My point was that the rubbing down would not be done.

Captain HACKING: The same argument applies to rubbing down as to the actual use of the lead paint. If a man knows he is damaging his own health by rubbing down dry and getting dust into his lungs, he will naturally hesitate before refusing to carry out the Regulations. An argument which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wall-head) used this evening was to the effect that the wet rubbing down would be more costly, but that is an argument in favour of regulation, because if it is more costly to rub down by the wet process, it will inevitably drive people to the use of some kind of paint which is not poisonous, and thus you will get the use of zinc white coming in because of regulation. That, I think, is a strong argument in favour of regulation. I only want to repeat what has been said on more than one occasion —said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am sure I repeated it in Committee—to this effect, that these Regulations are only in the nature of an experiment. We are not going to claim anything more for them
than that, but we do believe that it is abhorrent to the Englishman's mind that there should be prohibition of anything if you can adopt any other course to prevent prohibition.
if these Regulations which we are going to put into operation fail, if they are not a success, if they do not have the effect, if not of stamping out completely, of very largely reducing the death rate in connection with lead poisoning, then the Home Secretary has pledged himself, and I repeat that pledge, that the Government will not hesitate to come down to this House and bring in another Bill, far more drastic than this, which will have prohibition as its essence. I have nothing more to say, except, perhaps, one word to the employers, who are not united, as has been said in this Debate, on prohibition. There are a great number of them who do not want prohibition, and quite naturally so from their own point of view. I would say to those employers that they must try to make these Regulations a success. It is up to them to prove that they can do good by Regulation. They must not only see that the Regulations are carried out in detail, but it is their duty to experiment in any way they can in the direction of using the waterproof sandpaper instead of the ordinary sandpaper, and having wet instead of dry rubbing down, and in other directions to try to make the Regulations succeed. If the Regulations do fail, I must tell them quite distinctly, as I tell the House, that the only alternative is prohibition, which the Government will not hesitate to bring in in order to get rid of this terrible disease.

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment. I cannot, of course, speak with anything of the practical knowledge of the hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke on paints and painting, but I have the honour to represent in this House a constituency in an area which, I think, might be regarded as the centre of the manufacture of white lead in the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) referred to a gentleman who, I think, is commonly regarded as a pioneer, as one of the first to take part in the crusade in this country against the dangers of lead poisoning. I refer to Sir Thomas Oliver, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken when he
said that, for a reason of which he was not aware, Sir Thomas Oliver had changed his mind, that at the outset, I think the suggestion was, Sir Thomas Oliver was a prohibitionist, and that in course of time he became, not a prohibitionist, but in favour of regulation as the method by which this danger could be dealt with. I happen to have here a letter which was written by Sir Thomas Oliver a year or two years ago, in which he says:
Years ago, when lead poisoning was more rife among the industries, and conditions were worse than now, I never felt that it was my duty to recommend the total prohibition of white lead.
That letter of Sir Thomas Oliver was written to the " Times " a year or two years ago, in which he pointed out that from the beginning, when he himself led the way in the great effort that has been made in this country to tackle the danger of white lead poisoning, and throughout, he believed, not in prohibition, but regulation, and certainly, as far as results are concerned in the particular area in Tyneside, the results would seem to justify that view of Sir Thomas Oliver. Everyone recognises that it is not the zinc and lead when made into a paint which is the danger, but when in a powder. That is the danger. In my own constituency we have one of the largest factories where white lead is made, and there was a time when the sickness and death resulting from lead poisoning were very considerable, due entirely to the dust which flew about the factory; but that dust and that danger were overcome by, as I understand, some draught method, by which the duet was drawn from the factory, and the danger has been reduced, and is now almost negligible.
10.0 P.M.
An hon. Gentleman on the other side said that the supporters of the regulations on this side were got at by the manufacturers, and I dare say if there is anyone on this side who might be thought to be got at, I might be regarded as such. I have not been got at by the manufacturers of white lead. I have received resolutions from the employés of that factory and other factories. pointing out how disastrous it would be to this great and important national industry if prohibition were carried out. These resolutions come from men who are deeply interested, who themselves
are running the danger, and who have asked me and others in this House that we should press, not for prohibition, but for regulation. In their case it is not an academic interest; it is not a speculation as to whether regulations will overcome the danger or not, but the regulations which have been adopted in the manufacture of white lead have been successful If they have been successful in the manufacture of white lead, if Regulations have overcome this danger, why should not something along the same lines be done in the use of lead paint? It is not, as was pointed out, the actual painting which is the danger, but it is the rubbing down of walls which have been painted with lead paint, the powder off those walls, which is the danger. They suggest—and I think justly and rightly suggest—that just as in these factories we, by Regulation, have been able to overcome this danger completely, so we think the right Regulation in the matter of the use of paint, and the preparing of walls for paint, will equally overcome the difficulty. While no one will desire to minimise the dreadful results from lead poisoning, I do not think it is exactly fair to exaggerate the amount of lead poisoning there is among painters in this country. There is the Report of the Hatch Committee in 1911, a Committee which cannot be said to be biassed in favour of the use of lead paint. According to that Committee, the results of lead poisoning among painters was much less than was commonly believed.
One recognises in the Debate to-night, and the Debates in the other stages of this Bill, the influence which the Geneva Convention has had upon the minds of hon. Members on the other side, as it has had upon hon. Members on this side. No one likes to think that this country is, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, guilty of a breach of honour and treacherous in this matter of the carrying out of the Geneva Convention, hut there is no moral or legal obligation to carry out that Convention or other Convention. It is simply a recommendation, but I venture to think that the circumstances in which this Convention was prepared is likely to prejudice the effect of other Geneva Conventions in this country. sometimes wonder if this House quite appreciates that, while the Conference at
Geneva, with all sorts and conditions of men and women, representing all sorts of interests—quite a comparatively number of them with any knowledge whatever of this particular industry—decided by a majority of one in favour of this Convention, the expert committee, which had sat for 15 days, a committee made up of men well qualified to come to a decision upon a difficult and a technical question of this kind, recommended to the Conference that not prohibition but regulation should he adopted.

Mr. DUNCAN: That is what we have suggested—regulation.

Mr. RUSSELL: But this Clause provides for the prohibition of the use of white lead paint.

Mr. DUNCAN: inside.

Mr. RUSSELL: But this expert Committee would have nothing whatever to do with prohibition, either for external or internal purposes, and here in this Conference a conglomeration of people, the vast majority of whom were completely unable to decide on a question of this character, go against the recommendations of the Committee, and as a result, it is suggested, of unfair propaganda that had been brought to bear upon them, they decided for prohibition. I say that the circumstances in which this Convention was prepared and drawn up are not of the kind to recommend the Conventions of Geneva to the serious notice of those interested in industrial affairs of this kind. Regulations in the manufacture of white lead have practically eliminated the dangers. So 1 suggest that, especially now that the wet rubbing down by water-proof sandpaper has proved to be so great a success, we have every right to believe that the Regulations which were so successful in the manufacture of white lead will likewise eliminate the danger in the use of paint in interior buildings.

Mr. VIANT: The hon. Member who has just spoken said that he had received a resolution from his constituents and that they feared they would be unemployed if the prohibition of the use of white lead in paint took place. Those who are engaged in the grinding process will not in any sense of the word be dis-
placed. They will be employed in the grinding of zinc used for precisely the same purposes as the white lead has been used. The same quantity will be required, and the same process will be engaged in. There will be no displacement of labour in that respect. Secondly, the hon. Member has said that we were under no legal obligation to put the findings of the Convention into effect. Some of us feel that as a result of the Geneva Convention we are under a moral obligation to put the findings of that Convention into effect and we feel that that moral obligation is far and away more important than a legal obligation. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Hatch Committee, which has been referred to, obtained far more reliable data than did the Norman Committee. The Hatch Committee sat for 49 days. It had before it 118 witnesses, whereas the Norman Committee sat for 13 days only and examined only 26 witnesses. Therefore, from the point of view of merit, some of us feel that the inquiries of the Hatch Committee were far more exhaustive than those of the Norman Committee. The representative of the Government went to Geneva and gave the pledge of his Government to the findings of the Convention which was carded by 90 with only one dissension, and we feel that that pledge should be honoured. Not only that, but the findings of the Convention were based upon the evidence and the data obtained by the Hatch Committee, which far outweighed the findings of the Norman Committee.
The only thing that might happen by way of causing certain authorities to change their opinion in respect of the effects and the merits of prohibition as against regulation would be the fact that those who are responsible for the manufacture of white lead in conjuction with other manufacturers have brought forward this so-called damp glass paper. The operatives are firmly convinced that there is really no merit attached to the damp rubbing down process, that the so-called oily glass paper that is to be used for rubbing down purposes causes not dust, but creates a sort of cream, and they are convinced that the cream which is produced in the place of dust cannot be unhealthy in that it cannot get right into the lungs. But it works up under the nails and into the quick of the fingers
and gets into the human system in that way. The result undoubtedly will be just as injurious as was the dry rubbing down. That is the only change that has taken place. From the point view of the operatives and of the master painters themselves, we are firmly convinced that there is no way out, if we are desirous of safeguarding the interests of those who are engaged in the industry, than that of prohibiting the use of white lead altogether.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am impressed very greatly with the very earnest appeals that have been made from this side of the House about a question of which we have heard a great deal. Here is a great evil pressing; why should not the Government face the question of prohibition? The case has been submitted from the Front Bench on this side showing the deplorable results that are taking place. Why should the Government representative state that we are still going to experiment with the question of endeavouring to alleviate or regulate a trouble, when, by taking effective

action in the way of prohibition, results could be secured in the interests of humanity and lives could be preserved. The same words come in here as on another important question. I have heard them over and over again— no prohibition, but regulation. Very much evidence can be brought from various parts of the House concerning the terrific evil which is working devastation upon humanity, but there is always the question of wondering where the business interest lies. We have learnt to-night that business interests have been at work.

Geneva has undoubtedly been let down and, apart from the point we are discussing now, that in itself is a most serious development for the country to face. If we are to say there is no moral obligation to adopt Geneva's findings this country will be losing its position among the nations of the world.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 74: Noes, 198.

Division No. 425.]
AYES.
[10.16 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hall. G. H. (Me-thyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hills. Major John Waller
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
William, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Windsor, Walter


Duncan, C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Womersley, W. J


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.



Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. J.


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
H. Hudson.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Albery. Irving James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cassels, J. D.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Balnlel, Lord
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chamberlain Rt. Hon N (Ladywood)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Clarry, Reginald George


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Blundell, F. N.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Couper, J. B.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hilton, Cecil
Price, Major C. W. M.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir O. (St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ramsden, E.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Holland Sir Arthur
Renter, J. R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ct'ts'y)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cunlitte, Sir Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinton, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Banders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Gerald S.
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Simms, or. John M. (Co. Down)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jacob, A. E.
Skelton, A N.


Dixey, A. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot. Major Walter E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Elveden, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden. E.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Storry-Deans, R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (J. of W.)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maclntyre, Ian
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gilmour. Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Grace, John
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Merriman, F. B.
White, Lieut.-Col sir G. Dalrymple


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colone T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison. C. K.
Withers, John James


Haslam, Henry C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wolmer, Viscount


Hawke, John Anthony
Neville, R. J.
Wood. E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple



Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-



Pilcber, G.
Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson.



Power, Sir John Cecil



Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Regulations as to use of lead paint.)

Dr. WATTS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after the word "the," to insert the word "monthly."
I have great sympathy with hon. Members opposite in their advocacy of the prohibition of lead paint, but, unfortunately, we have no efficient and safe substitute for it, and so we must fall back on our second line of defence, namely, regulation. I have had 25 years' experience with regard to lead poisoning, and I attach the greatest importance to the method of preventing lead poisoning by medical examination. Hon. Members have spoken as though lead poisoning were an acute disease and might arise
from one exposure to infection. I would remind them that it is a chronic disease, which often takes months, and even years, to develop.
Fortunately, it has certain well-marked premonitory symptoms by which it can be easily recognised by medical examination, such as the progressive anæmia and the destruction of the red corpuscles of the blood, which can be easily recognised by the analyst and by the medical examiner, and there is the power under these Regulations to suspend from employment a workman whose health is or appears likely to he injuriously affected, such as has been found previously, in the case of carbon bisulphide poisoning and mercurial
poisoning, to be quite sufficient. In order, however, that this examination may be absolutely efficient, it is necessary that it should be carried out at certain stated intervals, and that is the reason why I suggest the insertion of the word " monthly." I do not wish to labour the point, but I believe that, although the Minister may have ample powers under the present Regulations, his hands would be strengthened by having a definite statement in this Bill that the examination must be conducted monthly, or, if that cannot be accepted, I would say periodically.

Dr. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain HACKING: I am sorry that cannot accept this Amendment, but I am prepared to meet my hon. Friend. In his concluding words he indicated that he would be satisfied if the word "periodical " were inserted, and I should be prepared to accept that word. I cannot accept the Amendment to insert the word " monthly," because it might be necessary to have inspections oftener or not so frequently. but, if my hon. Friend will agree to the word "periodical," perhaps he will withdraw his present Amendment" and I will then move to insert the word "periodical."

Dr. WATTS: In view of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, after the word "the," insert the word "periodical."—[Captain Hacking.]

Dr. WATTS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after the word "examination," to insert the words "by a certifying factory surgeon."
This Amendment, again, is intended to strengthen the Regulations. Under the Bill, this examination can be made by any medical man. My object is to restrict the Department to an examination made by a certifying factory surgeon, that is to say, a surgeon who has had considerable experience in examining and treating cases of lead poisoning. I merely want to strengthen the Regulations, and so prevent lead poisoning.

Mr. HILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain HACKING: I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to meet him on every occasion. I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, for the reason that, although almost always the Home Office, under their regulations, do have the examinations carried out by certifying factory surgeons, it may be necessary in certain cases that a specially appointed doctor should be substituted for the certifying factory surgeon. That is the reason I cannot accept the Amendment. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member I will say that the great qualifications of the certifying factory surgeon will not be overlooked.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Prohibition of employment of women and young persons in painting buildings with lead paint.)

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "woman or."
I am encouraged in moving this by a remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He said a short time ago that the average Englishman hated prohibition in any shape or form wherever it could be avoided. I think the English woman has the same objection as the Englishman and, so far as I can make out, there is not a single argument in favour of this prohibition as far as women are concerned. This is a matter on which a great number of women hold very strong opinions indeed. I am convinced that the average woman is getting more and more inclined to resent, now that they have the vote for Parliament and are exercising other privileges, the tendency that I see growing very strongly indeed to tell them, even though they are over 40 years of age, that they are not old enough to look after themselves. They are being constantly grouped with children. Before they had the vote they were grouped with lunatics. Now it is always women and children.
I am not here to say anything on the controversial question as to whether lead paint should be entirely excluded. That is a question the House has already decided. But there is not a single argument, as far as I can make out, in favour of excluding women from the right to
take part in this industry. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, before he turns it down, to give the House some reason why women should be excluded and men allowed to go on with this work. It is admitted on all hands that there is a danger in using this lead paint at all, but I understand the argument on the Government side is this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Government hope that by these Regulations the danger will he removed. If that is case, why should not women indulge in the occupation as well as men? If, on the other hand, the Regulations are not going to be of any effect, it is better to do away with them altogether. The general tendency of the closing of the industry to women is undoubtedly to force them one by one to take up other occupations, and bring about a very severe competition in the industries that are open.

Mr. HURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me a scandalous thing that this Bill should include a Clause which deprives a number of adults of their livelihood. It is common ground that many hundreds of women are engaged in this work, and why on earth they should be deprived of their chance of earning a living, why they should be forced out of the employment which they have secured for themselves by their own abilities, I cannot understand. The Under-Secretary says he disbelieves in prohibition. If that is so, why are these women prohibited from continuing to earn their livelihood? The only ground on which prohibition is being justified at all is that it is recommended by some international Commission, which does not bind this Government legally or morally. If the obligations which are supposed to have been entered into by Sir Montague Barlow are not binding on Parliament in regard to one portion, I do not see why they should be binding in regard to another. Before the House deprives any portion of the population of their ordinary means of livelihood, there ought to be some strong justification. These women possess considerable skill and earn good wages. They have a voice, surely, as to whether or no they should be prohibited from continuing in the work. There is no evidence that any of them, or any union of such women, have ever expressed any desire to
be ousted from their employment. It seems very much as if this Clause were based upon the selfishness of people who want to take the places of these women. There is no more dangerous or more pernicious form of selfishness than selfishness masquerading as philanthrophy. That is what this Clause seems to be.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I hope the Government will not be, led away into the reactionary course advocated by two hon. Members on their own side. I am sorry that there has been a play on the word "prohibition." There is no parallel whatsoever between the prohibition of women and children in employment of this description, as against men, and the prohibition of drink. The two things are entirely and absolutely distinct, and to make a play on the word is a kind of pun which is entirely unworthy of the subject. I am very strongly in favour of prohibition and supported the Amendment which was moved from this side, and am very sorry that the Government have not taken the course of accepting that Amendment. As the Government have not done that, I do hope that they will not waver in the slightest degree in favour of the Amendment now offered to them, and seductively offered to them, from their own side.
The hon. Members who proposed and seconded the Amendment asked whether women had not a voice on this particular question. They have apparently two voices. What women are they 4 I say very emphatically, speaking with knowledge, that those who are in favour of this Amendment are not women industrially employed, but middle-class women, sentimenalists, who have vague ideas, without having touching with economic realities, as to the equalisation of rights, which has no real bearing on the facts of the case. On this side we recognise that there are real physical differences between men and women. The fact that lead poisoning is one of the causes of abortion, and a very important and serious cause, is a sufficient reason in itself to justify a very careful examination of this case, if it were desired to go back on the proposals of the Government, which I hope it is not.
Another reason why we should protect women more effectively than we protect men, is because women can less effectively
protect themselves. As an economic and trade union fact, that is the truth of the case. Women and children for that reason ought to be protected. There is another reason. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is in charge of the Bill, has spoken of the Regulation policy as a policy of experiment. He said that the Home Secretary had stated that this was an experiment. It seems to me a very unfortunate experiment, because it is an experiment with death. There is a very considerable death rate from lead poisoning. I have the figures, but I will not trouble the House with them. Why should women and children be exposed to the risk of that death? I see no reason whatsoever, and I do urge the Government to resist this Amendment. Prohibition has been part of the progressive policy of all Governments in the past. There is the prohibition of child labour, the prohibition of over-long hours, and all kinds of industrial prohibitions. I hope this particular prohibition is only the first step, and that at an early date the Government will take the next step and prohibit the employment of men also.

Captain HACKING: I am sorry to have to resist this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved it asked me for reasons for refusing to accept it. The chief reason is that lead poisoning is a greater danger to women than it is to men. Let me quote from an article written by Sir Thomas Oliver, whose name has been mentioned already during the Debate and who is one of the greatest authorities on lead poisoning. He says:
On the whole females suffer more severely from plumbism than males.
Let me also quote from Sir Thomas Legge, who is the Chief Medical Inspector of Factories at the Home Office at the moment. He says:
Women are more susceptible to poisoning by lead than men.
That is the chief reason why we resist the proposal. A circular letter has been sent out by the Society for Equal Citizenship, in which they say that there is an unfair discrimination in this matter between men and women. I fail to see that it is an unfair discrimination. If there is a discrimination, it has been
exercised in the interests of the health of the women, and the proviso, in the Bill was put in because it was one of the points dealt with by the Convention at Geneva. I do not think I need go into any further details on this proposal. As I say, if there is a discrimination in this matter, it is a discrimination in the interests of the health of the women, and I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS [MONEY].

Resolution reported.
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards losses incurred by councils of counties and county boroughs in providing small holdings, and of councils of counties in providing cottage holdings, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask one question in regard to this Money Resolution? I have the White Paper here, and the Clause, on page 4, which deals with the finance of this Resolution states that £150,000 per annum is the liability, and also that there is a loan of £6,000,000. I should like to know if this is the total amount for which the State is liable. There is no amount mentioned in the Financial Resolution.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am asked whether the £6,000,000 mentioned in the White Paper is the total. Of course, it is only an estimate, and it may not be reached. It is, however, what we believe will be necessary on the basis of the speed at which small holdings were being provided by the local authorities before the War. Certainly there is no intention to exceed that amount, though we recognise that it is possible that a larger number of small holdings than we have estimated for may be provided within that time.

Sir F. WISE: What about the other amount, the £150,000 a year?

Mr. GUINNESS: That again is an estimate.

Sir F. WISE: Is it the total amount?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is the total amount, certainly. That is the definite arrangement. But it is impossible, as we depend upon local authorities and upon conditions that we cannot control, to ensure at what speed or to what extent this new opportunity will be used.

Orders of the Day — ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.

Motion made, and Question, " That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Hacking.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Restrictions on making of adoption Orders.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 2, leave out lines 4 to 8, and insert
Provided that where the applicant and the infant are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, it shall be lawful for the Court, if it thinks fit, to make the Order notwithstanding that the applicant is less than twenty-one years older than the infant.

Captain HACKING: I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment. There is no change made in the effect of the Clause.

Lords Amendment:

In page 2, line 26, after " infant " insert "either."

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was argued in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Robert Newman) on the Report stage, that the Court ought to have somewhat wider power than the existing Clause gives to dispense with the consent of a putative father. It was suggested that the putative father (quite
likely to be an undesirable person) would be in a position to refuse consent to the adoption on grounds, perhaps, merely of spite against the mother; or even to attempt to level blackmail by refusing his consent except for a consideration; and that provided he had been contributing regularly, however small an amount, the Court would be unable to overrule his refusal. The point was accepted, in substance, by the Government, and the Amendment now inserted (which has the concurrence of Mr. Justice Tomlin) gives the Court a wider discretion to dispense with the consent of a "person liable to contribute."

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.:

In page 2, line 34, after "consent," insert
or that the spouses have separated and are living apart, and that the separation is likely to be permanent.

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Efforts were made in the House of Commons to secure an Amendment so as to allow a married person, definitely separated from his or her partner, to be able to adopt a child without an absolute necessity of obtaining the consent of the partner. Against this, it might be argued that separations are not always so permanent as they seem, and that if the Court were to overrule the wishes of the separated partner the effect might be either to put a final obstacle in the way of an otherwise possible reunion or to leave open a possibility that in the event of a re-union the welfare of the child might be prejudiced. The Government undertook, however, to consider the point; and the Amendment now inserted would give the Court discretion to dispense with the consent of the separated spouse if satisfied as to the probable permanence of the separation.

CLAUSE 5.—(Effect of adoption Order.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 3, line 40, after "aforesaid" insert
and for the purpose of the jurisdiction of any Court to make orders as to the custody
and maintenance and right of access to children.

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of the Amendment is to give the Courts, in the case of divorce or separation, power to make an order for the custody of the adopted child.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, lines 6 and 7, leave out " under any will, settlement, or other."

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the following Amendment are purely drafting Amendments consequential upon the introduction of Clause 5 of the definition of the word "disposition."

subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 28, at the end, insert as a new Sub-section:
(5)For the purposes of the enactments relating o friendly societies, collecting societies, and industrial assurance companies, which enable such societies and companies to insure money to be paid for funeral expenses; and which restrict the persons to whom money may be paid on the death of a child under the age of ten, the adopter shall be deemed to be the parent of the child; and where before the adoption order was made any such insurance had been effected by the natural parent of the child, the rights and liabilities under the policy shall by virtue of the adoption order he transferred to the adopter, and the adopter shall, for the purposes of the said enactments, be treated as the person who took out the policy.

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is of rather more substance. The industrial insurance companies under the provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act, 1923, are empowered to issue policies ensuring the payment of funeral expenses on the death of the child. The insurance companies have approached the Home Office and put two questions. One is what would happen to the policy on the child being adopted? The second is
whether the adopting parent could insure the adopted child in the same way as the natural parent. It is quite obvious this matter must be examined, and the Amendment was moved in the House of Lords to give effect to the recommendations of the insurance companies. The Bill, in fact, says the policy shall automatically be transferred from the natural to the adopting parents. The companies agree with this Amendment, and as the amount is very small cannot see there would be objection to its being inserted.

Orders of the Day — MINING INDUSTRY BILL.

Motion made, and Question, That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith, and to be printed." [Bill 187]. Put and agreed to—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 5.—(Supplementary provisions as to schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 38, after "property" insert "or securities."

Mr. SPEAKER: This may be only a drafting Amendment, but if it has any other effect it is a question of the privilege of the House.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): It is really a drafting Amendment, and I do not think that we need object to it on that ground. I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lords Amendment:

In line 40, leave out from the beginning to "shall" in line 3 of page 6, and insert
(3) Any action taken for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation or submission of a scheme under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be within the powers of any company, and no such action.

Sir L. WORTHINGTONEVANS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is really a better method of expressing what is already in the Bill.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Amendment has no substance in it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Absolutely none.

CLAUSE 15.—(Increase in number of welfare committee.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, lines 12 and 13, leave out "a member appointed by the Board of Trade," and insert
two members appointed by the Board of Trade, of whom one shall be appointed after consultation with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and one.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment which was moved here, and the hon. Gentleman who moved it asked for a balancing of representatives.

CLAUSE 17.—(Provision of washing and drying accommodation.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, line 43, at the end, to insert as a new Sub-section:
(3) Sub-section (5) of Section twenty of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, is hereby repealed.

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is proposed to insert this new Subsection in order to remedy a misapprehension which arose during the Debate on the Report stage. The original Subsection which also repealed Section 77 of the Act of 1911 was then moved out and it is desired to put back this particular portion of it. The Section to which it refers deals with the question of pit-head baths. Under Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, when first the principle of pit-head baths was considered by this House, a system was suggestea, but never came into operation, owing to certain limitations which were prescribed, namely, that where the cost was estimated to exceed 3d. per man per week, it should not be possible for those working in the pit to demand those baths. If the cost was estimated to be below that
figure, then it was possible for the men working in the pit by a two-third majority to demand that baths should be set up. It is not necessary to maintain the rest of the original Sub-section because under the present system pit-head baths are to be provided from an addition to the welfare fund. We desire that the system should continue to the same lines. The provision of the baths under the welfare fund is working admirably. The various conditions, various circumstances, and various possibilities of different localities have all been met by agreement, and there is no possibility now of ever getting back to the very low rate estimated in the Coal Mines Act of 1911. The rate of 3d. per man per week will never be possible again, and at present the experience of the pit-head baths now in operation shows that the cost is about 1s. That does not include interest on capital owing to the fact that capital is provided by the welfare fund, and of course it will now be provided by the increase in the welfare fund. In these circumstances it is far better than the present welfare system, which is working admirably, should not be upset by going back to 1911, and we hope and desire that the present system of pit-head baths will be maintained in the same spirit of co-operation and good will.

Mr. S. WALSH: We quite agree that Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, should still remain intact.

Mr. BATEY: Let us be quite clear on this point. What is the object of the Lords Amendment, if Section 77 of the 1911 Act is still intact? I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that we were not leaving in Section 77.

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member is wrong. I tried to explain that we are not trying to repeal Section 77 of the Act of 1911.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. BATEY: On Report, the Government proposed an Amendment, which we opposed on the ground that under the 1911 Act the workmen had the privilege of taking a ballot, and if two-thirds of them agreed, they could call upon the owner to erect pit-head baths, provided that the maintenance did not cost more than 3d. per man per week. The
Government gave way to our opposition, and now I understand the Lords have reversed that position.

Colonel LANE FOX: No.

CLAUSE 18.—(Recruitment.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 12, line 6, after "for," insert " the purpose of."

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 13, leave out " restrictions,' and insert
such restrictions as may be necessary for that purpose.

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is practically a drafting Amendment. It merely defines more closely the scope of the Regulation, and limits it to the special purpose of the Clause.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Mossley, which was presented on the 14th July and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. M. samuel.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Baildon, and the parish or township of Hawks-worth, in the rural district of Wharfedale, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 12th day of July, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Shardlow, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 12th day of July, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Wetherby and part of the rural district of Wharfedale, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 13th day of July. 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 16S2 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Leiston-cum-Sizewell and Saxmundham and parts of the rural districts of Blything, Plomesgate, and Woodbridge, ail in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 14th day of July, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Bungay, in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1926, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Denby and Cumberworth, Dodsworth, Gunthwaite and Ingbirchworth, Hoylandswaine, Shelley. Shepley, Stocksbridge and Thurlstone, and parts of the rural districts of Barnsley and Penistone, all in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. in respect of the urban districts of Denholme, Queensbury, Shelf, and Southowram, all in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1926, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]

Orders of the Day — BURGH REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As Amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Burgh register of sasines discontinued.)

Mr. MACINTYRE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the first words "for Scotland," and to insert instead thereof the words " of State."
This Amendment, and the Amendments which follow on the Order Paper, are purely of a drafting nature, resulting from the status of the Secretary for Scotland being raised to that of a Secretary of State.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — VENEREAL DISEASE ACT (1917) AMENDMENT BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE, 1926.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
In moving that this Measure be presented for Royal Assent, I would ask the House to appreciate that this is a matter of legislation applying to the clergy of the Church of England, but it does not apply in any way to diocesan Bishops. It has been before the Church Assembly for three years. It has been a subject of long deliberation and considerable revision, and, during that process, the Church Assembly has gone through a general election, so that those who object to its provisions have had adequate opportunities of bringing those objections forward in the proper place, in the Church Assembly. The Measure has been carried in the Church Assembly by
quite a considerable majority—in the House most concerned, the House of Clergy, by 130 to 20; in the House of Bishops, no votes were recorded against it; and in the House of Laity only 11 votes were recorded against it.
The object of the Measure is to provide pensions of £200 a year in the case of clergy who attain the age of 70 and have 40 years' service. It is provided that those over the age of 55 at the date appointed for bringing the Measure into operation will be exempted from the scheme, and this is perhaps a matter of regret. The provision of £200 a year for those clergy who will ultimately benefit is on a generous basis when compared with the rates of contribution which the clergy are required to make towards this scheme. The contributions which the clergy will make could not possibly purchase a pension of that sum. I hear it is urged in soma quarters that this Measure ought not to be proceeded with, but my opinion is that this objection comes from a very small minority. In putting this Motion down to-night, I do so for the reason that, if this Measure is not presented for Royal Assent now, the result will he that some 200 clergy will be prevented from benefiting. I do not want to press the Measure if the House feels that it should not be proceeded with, but I think it would be a great injustice to two or three hundred clergy if, in response to some quite negligible opposition, the House were to hang up this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I gather that the general sense of the House is that the reasonableness of the proposal is appreciated, and that the House will present the Measure for assent.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to Second the Motion.
I only wish to add that, at the present time, there is no satisfactory system for providing pensions for aged clergy who are unable to continue their work. We have introduced contributory pensions into every part of public life, the Civil Service, for teachers, and so forth, and, if we are to have a, scheme at this is the most equitable which could be devised. It has been for three years before the National Assembly, and if it is adjourned to-night on some minute technical objection, it will mean that some three or four hundred clergy will
be definitely and permanently excluded from the scheme. It has received the assent of another place, and I hope, therefore, that this House will to-night give it the final authority.

Major HILLS: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I hope the mover and the seconder of the Motion will listen to what I have to say. I am not at the moment opposing the Measure, but I do want to put before the House very strong reasons why we Should not be rushed in the way we are being rushed. Let me tell the House the facts as they came to my knowledge. I had never heard of this Measure at all until three days ago, and I am quite certain that many hon. Members are in the same position as I was in. I then heard from constituents of mine who objected very strongly to the Measure. I looked on the Order Paper to see when it was coming on. I saw no notice that this Motion was to be moved. I could not believe that a Measure of this importance would be moved without notice, and thought it would go over till the Autumn. I looked on the Order Paper yesterday again. There was not a word about it then. Not until this morning did it, appear, and it is to-day, the last day of the Session, when we are asked to consider it.
Now I will say a few words about the Measure from the point of view of asking the House to postpone the consideration of it. It is a Measure of 39 Clauses—the same number of Clauses as there are Articles: ii is a highly complex Measure, which lays a tax upon beneficed clergymen it repeals an Act of this House. This is the complicated Measure we are asked suddenly to pass when I am sure many hon. Members listening to me have not read it. I know the Noble Lord opposite and the Noble Lord below me took a very great interest in passing the Act under which this Measure comes before us. Do they think they are doing a good service to the Church Assembly in rushing the House of Commons like this? We do not know anything about the Measure. No explanatory statement has been circulated.

HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

Lord HUGH CECIL: It is in the Vote Office.

Major HILLS: I never knew a word about the Measure till I read it to-day. When the approval of this House is necessary before Measures are sent up for the Royal Assent, how can that approval mean anything if we are asked to take without examination a long, intricate and important Measure of this sort? 1 have a feeling, which is very deep in me, that we ought not to relax Parliamentary control over Measures passed by the Church Assembly. I do not think the House thinks we ought, and I am sure the country does not. But what does that control amount to if, on the last day of a busy Session, hon. Members come down and ask us to pass en bloc,without reading it, a Measure of this sort? I had hoped my hon. Friend would not press this Motion, and I do not believe he is doing a good service to the cause he supports by pressing it, but since he is pressing it, I am moving that the Debate stand adjourned.

Mr. BARR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am well aware that when the Enabling Powers Act, 1919, was passing through this House the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) received an assurance from Mr. Speaker that this business could be taken after Eleven o'Clock, and therefore it is quite in order. That does not prevent me emphasising what has so well been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). This Measure of 39 Clauses and three large Schedules has encountered a good deal of opposition among clergy affected. I have myself received a good many letters on the subject. The figures which have just been quoted in one of the Divisions, that is, 130 to 26, show by no means a negligible difference of opinion. In another document, which I received, I find that a comparison is made between this Measure and the Pensions Measure, 1926, and that a priori,and looking at it hurriedly there seem to be a good many points of divergence which operate against the inferior clergy, the rank and file, as compared with the superior.
I desire to give an intelligent vote on these Church questions, and no one can accuse me of having been factious on these questions in the past. We did oppose the Measure for the creation of a new Bishop of Shrewsbury, but in that
we were confirmed in another place, and that is always gratifying to anyone who sits on the Labour benches. When the 1919 Enabling Powers Act of the Church of England was passing through the House, it was emphasised by the promoters that there would be the fullest Parliamentary consideration and control in this House, and I think we should abide by that. I would point out that under this form of procedure we are in quite a different position from that occupied in the promotion of a Bill which comes before Parliament time and again. Under this special procedure when the Measure only comes before us once, it is hurriedly taken in nearly every case. The result is that at the last moment we have to run and get papers of various kinds and therefore we came here imperfectly prepared. The Church of England loses rather than gains by that procedure. I only wish to add—I cannot refrain from saying it—that I do wish that the church of England would take the great step that would put her in these matters in the same position of freedom already enjoyed by other churches in the land.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) that there is really no difference of opinion about the principle which should govern our action in these matters. No one desires to prevent this House from exercising in the fullest and most deliberate way its control over the Measures that are from time to time in pursuance of the Enabling Act laid before it. The position as regards the exigencies of Parliamentary time, is not to be regarded from the point of view of the Measures of the Church Assembly, but from the point of view of the Government. There is no reason why these Measures should not be debated for hours. If my hon. and gallant Friend wished, he could go to the Prime Minister and urge him to give more time for these discussions, and no one would be more pleased than I, but we are obliged to take what time is offered. I do not want the House to suppose that there is any difference of opinion as to the right and duty of the House to supervise legislation that is laid before it, but I want the House to act in a spirit both of justice and of common
sense towards this Measure because of the peculiar circumstances of the case.
This Measure has been debated at great length. It obviously does not raise any question of great controversial principle one way or the other; it is a matter of technical detail, actuarial calculation, and the like. There have long been among the clergy some who have opposed this Measure at every stage, but their opposition has produced no effect at all upon their colleagues. Had it produced any such effect this Measure would have been rejected over and over again, for the procedure of the Church Assembly is very elaborate and carefully constructed so as to present the fullest opportunity of rejecting any Measure or any part of any Measure. It goes through stages modelled on the procedure of both Houses of Parliament, and there is the fullest opportunity for any opponent to raise any issue he pleases. Nothing can pass which has not the assent of all three Houses—bishops, clergy and laity. Having been discussed in that way it comes down to us.
I should be quite in favour of adjourning the Debate if there were no loss, and if it were merely a matter of convenience. The only reason why I venture rather warmly to appeal to the House on this occasion to pass the Measure is because failure to do so will throw out of the benefits of the pensions scheme some 200 or 300 clergy. We are told that it is no benefit, but anyone who looks into it will see that it is a beneficial Measure to the whole of the clergy and they have accepted it as such. When it is compared with the Episcopal Pensions Measure which is to come on in the autumn, the answer is quite simple. That Measure means that the Bishops will give up terms immensely more advantageous which they now enjoy in order to take on worse terms in the interest of the Church.
This present Measure gives the clergy something which they never had before. There really, therefore, is nothing except prejudice in the comparison between the two Measures. I venture earnestly to say that it would be almost cruel for this House, merely because of a matter which. I agree, is one of Parliamentary
propriety—

Major HILLS: It is not propriety; it is principle.

Lord H. CECIL: Does my hon. and gallant Friend really think that if the Measure be delayed until the autumn the House will reject it then? I am quite sure it will do nothing of the kind. What does it mean? It means throwing the whole question of pensions for the clergy back for 10 years. This is the best scheme arrived at after infinite deliberation by very competent and able men, supported by the laity, the clergy, the Central Board of Finance. The utmost attention has been given to the subject, and it may be taken for granted that a better scheme than this cannot be obtained, if you are going to carry out pensions for the clergy at all, I am sure the House, if they deliberated it for ever, would always come to the same conclusion about the matter. Are we to throw these 200 or 300 people out of the scheme—

Major HILLS: Surely that point can be met by a very small Amendment to the existing Measure. Pensions start from the appointed day, and the appointed day—

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not discuss the merits of the Measure on this Motion. The only Motion before the House is "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Lord H. CECIL: We cannot amend it; we must either reject it or adopt it.

Major HILLS: You can amend it.

Lord H. CECIL: No. Parliament cannot amend a Measure; it must either be accepted or rejected. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the matter, in view of the injury it would do to a large number of perfectly innocent people, while he would gain nothing.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I wish so put one point on behalf of many of my constituents who have written to me. I
think my Noble Friend has given overwhelming arguments why we should not accept this Motion for the adjournment, and should proceed with the matter. It is not right to represent, and my Noble Friend did not represent, the fairly large number of clergy throughout the country as a merely ignorant or obstructive minority. They are nothing of the kind. With their interests very much in my mind, and arguing with myself as to whether I should vote for the Motion or not, I comfort myself with the reflection that it will all depend upon how the Measure is administered. I hope that in its administration there will be no sort of wooden interpretation of the Measure, and that the largest sympathy will be shown in every direction, having regard to the undoubted ways in which to some extent the shoe will pinch with certain of these people. T should not be doing right if I did not say this, and I believe in saying it I shall have a very large majority of the House with me.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock Mr. SPEANER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.